Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for letting us know about this. I'm afraid that this website is mainly bad news about companies so it's very refreshing and very decent for someone to come along and to give praise where praise is due. How about a link to their website?
    • Having a little additional think about this, I think that your interests are best protected in the following way: You inform the seller that you are obtaining the quotes which I have referred to above. Having received the quotes, you then inform them that you are proposing to have the work carried out at XXX garage and that you will expect that the seller will reimburse you for the costs and associated expenses. You can tell them though that you understand that they may want to control the work being done to the car and so you are willing to allow them to do it but as the fault has manifested itself at this point and that it is clear that the problem is their responsibility, if they wish to carry the work out themselves then they will have to organise the collection vehicle and the delivery of it to you once the work is completed. Of course this will be very expensive for them and they will either fail to respond or they will refuse. Whatever their reaction, you would then go on to say that as they have failed to respond/declined the invitation to carry out the repairs themselves, that you are now going to your preferred garage – one of the two quotations which you have supplied – and you will have the vehicle repaired there. You are giving them an opportunity to comment. I think that if you use this approach, then you will be able to demonstrate very clearly that they had a choice and therefore they will be unable to disassociate themselves from the repairs which are eventually carried out at your chosen repairer. Even though this exchange of correspondence may mean that it will take a week or so longer to have your repairs carried out, I think you should do this in order to protect yourself in the best way possible
    • Please name the dealer   I would start off by sending them a letter of rejection seeing as you are within the 30 days. This doesn't mean that you have to reject it but it reserves your position. Secondly, on the basis of what you say, I don't think that you need necessary to find the cheapest place. You should be looking at the best quality that you can find. I think the best thing to do would be to get to competing quotations for the work you propose to have carried out – and not necessarily at the cheapest place, but a couple of proper reputable garages – authorised for that kind of vehicle. Inform the dealer as to what you are doing and providing with copies of the estimates for the work before you put it in hand. Give them five days to object or to make other comments. Make it clear to them that once the work is carried out that you will be looking to them to reimburse you. Of course you are opening a can of worms here because if you get some further problems – more serious – you may find that the dealer is starting to say that because you have carried out your own work so your own repairer on the car, they cannot now say that any defects were inherent in the purchase – and that they may have been introduced by 1/3 party repairer. I'm afraid that you have certainly fallen into a trap of buying a car a long distance away from where you live. We find that people often tend to do that because they think the car they have found is the only one in the world for them. They forget to factor in the difficulties that they will be if there are defects – particularly if the car stopped altogether – the cost of transportation to the dealer, the cost of having to travel up and down the country to collect the car – and of course these difficulties could emerge several times through the initial years of your ownership of the vehicle if you are relying on your statutory rights and expect the dealer to meet those obligations. Furthermore, if you have to bring a court action against them you are now dealing with multijurisdictional claims – suing out of Scotland against the defendant in England and that adds to the complications. It's too late for you to do anything about this – unless you actually decide to reject the vehicle – but at the very least, other people who come across this thread may get some benefit from these comments. I think it's important for you to get the best quality repair you can and to make sure that the dealer is aware of what you are doing so that if later on they try to deny responsibility for further defects, that you will be able to show that they were fully appraised of what you are doing and they will have less room to manoeuvre themselves out of their statutory obligations. I'm afraid that purchasing a car from one dealer and then having it repaired by another service provider, brings into the same kinds of difficulties that somebody who purchases a central heating boiler from one supplier and then has it installed by a different supplier find themselves in. When things go wrong, the seller blames the installer. The installer blames the seller – and you, the customer, are piggy in the middle. Not a good place to be. I notice that you are doing things on the telephone. Big Fail! Read our customer services guide. In your situation you should be extremely careful to make sure that you have got a record of everything and a full paper trail
    • What information do DVLA need for a provisional licence ?   Think the ID issue needs to be looked at a bit more. Surely you have birth certificate, school information, Doctors records. School and Doctors should provide a letter to help with ID.                
    • Amex as with any creditor must help you the FOS should go with you and make them remove all interest charged from the very 1st time of asking for help. the FCA regulations actually almost dictate it, they most certainly clearly state that if the are FCA registered they must help.   it's very telling they have no marked your credit file....almost as if they know they are wrong. it's also telling that an irresponsible lending complaint might well be in order hear too, they can just keep upping the credit limit without checking you can pay. and ofcourse covid plays its part here and they've already admitted as they allowed payments holidays until october in line with the rest of the industry and they should be continuing that. you problem is you keep using the phone, no paperwork no record of things discussed. i'd get an SAR off to them. and get the comms/account log and all the statements from day one and go nail them.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

PCN for delivering in my car and not van (good vehicle)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 899 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

I wonder if any of you lovely people can help me?

 

I was making a substantial delivery to a restaurant in Beverly ( Catering/janitorial supplies).

I was in my 4x4 as the van was delivering elsewhere.

 

The bay did have a restriction of 'goods vehicles only' but i did not see that.

The traffic warden agreed that she could see i was making a substantial delivery but said that i was using the wrong type of vehicle and issued a ticket.

 

I appealed the ticket giving the copy of the delivery note and explaining that the goods are too heavy and many to park in the multi story and walk with them.

They have rejected my appeal.

 

I am not happy about this and feel this is restrictive to their tenants and their suppliers.

My concern is that I will need to make future deliveries in my car …

how will I do this without getting a ticket or knackering my back by parking in the multi story?

 

Does anyone have any advise or similar situations?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.

 

Just to confirm, this week a council penalty charge notice, is it?

 

What is the exact wording of the offence please?

 

HB

 

Hi It was a council notice parking in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle'

 

I understand their point.

They did have signs up and I didn't read properly.

 

However, how can I make significant deliveries in future and how can they dictate what vehicle I should use?

 

I suppose I am disputing the sense in their restrictions.

 

It was good vehicles only.

I understand that the sign was there and I didn't read it.

However, there are a great many companies delivering to restaurants in that area that use estate cars and 4x4's to carry the goods.

 

I would like them to reconsider the merits, restriction and sense of their signs/ restrictions.

Edited by dx100uk
Merge
Link to post
Share on other sites
4x4's are not goods vehicles.

They most certainly can be. However, by the sounds of it, this one isn't.

 

The definition that the TPT will refer to is as a "goods vehicle" is defined in the Road Traffic Act, which says "a vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or burden of any description". The important words there are "a vehicle constructed or adapted". Or possibly (though less likely) the EU definition of a "goods vehicle" which is "Category N: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels designed and constructed for the carriage of goods."

 

So if we're talking about just a normal passenger carrying 4x4 that you just happened to be using to carry goods at the time, then I'm afraid that the ticket has probably been issued correctly.

 

You can still appeal to the TPT of course, but I'd be very surprised if they ruled in your favour.

 

That said, it might be worth looking for the actual TRO that covers that loading area though to see exactly what it says. If the TRO says "loading only" but the council have put up a "Goods Vehicles Only" sign, then you might well have a much better case to get it overturned. As it's a free search, it's got to be worth a look.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London tribunal case ref: 2160271291

 

 

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle. The PCN was issued at 12.56pm on 27 April 2016 and the location was Lenelby Road.

 

 

The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 sets out the contents required by the Regulations for a valid PCN served under Regulation 9.

 

 

 

Among other things, the PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.

The Council say that the place in which Mrs Harding's vehicle was parked was a goods vehicle only loading bay. In other words, the bay was designated for goods vehicles only. This is not, however, clear on the face of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle was parked in a place not designated for that class of vehicle.

 

 

 

A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain the class of vehicle for which the parking place was designated. The PCN needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.

 

 

I therefore find that the PCN was invalid and the appeal is allowed for that reason

.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am sorry I am not familiar with your three word abbreviations ... would you mind expanding :)

 

I would like to search the database as I feel it is massively restrictive to their tenants to restrict the type of delivery vehicles and it is entirely possible that the sign will not match the remit so to speak. Do you know what would i need to put into google to come up with their database?. Also as we are still in the EU could I not use the EU definition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three word abbreviations?

 

Are u referring to PCN?

Penalty charge notice.

 

The only issue with that appeal was the council did not represent themselves and didn't take a pic of the road sign. That's why the appeal was allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only issue with that appeal was the council did not represent themselves

Yes, they did with their evidence pack

 

 

 

 

 

 

didn't take a pic of the road sign..

 

 

Not quite sure how you know that and even if they didn't, it's irrelevant as that's not the issue

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why the appeal was allowed.

 

 

No the appeal was allowed becaues the pcn was defective i that it didn't identify the esignated class of vehicle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you put the link up to the actual judgment please for the benefit of the OP.

 

 

What I've posteed is the verbatim adjudication from the London Tribunals site You can find it by searching the Register of Appeals with the ref 2160271291

 

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your search has no results

 

If I wasn't on my phone I could post the screen shot

 

Even a search with

 

Mary Harding v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (case reference 2160271291):

 

Or just Mary Harding reveals no results

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be easier for you to click the link and post the url for direct access.

Still comes up with no search results. It might be my mobile tho

Link to post
Share on other sites

on Tribunals Register of Appeals: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

 

Click on 'Access the appellant portal'

 

When new Webpage opens go down to 'Statutory Registers' and click

 

It opens up 'Registers of Appeals' go down to 'Enviromental and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA) and click 'Search' (not the browse button)

 

It opens up 'ETA Register of Appeals and in 'Case reference' put the case ref number in and go down the page and click 'Search'

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

 

Is a TRO a 'Traffic Rule Order' ?

I would like to search the register to see what they have as the restriction in that location so I can see it matches the sign - whilst I contemplate what I am to do about this.

 

In the meantime, it would seem that the council have decided that their parking restrictions are too restrictive and have put a sign up indicating a variance to the parking allowed.

 

Now allowing:

1) loading for commercial vehicles 6 am to noon -

 

2) No Stopping except Taxis between noon and 6 am

 

3) Shared use of the bay -

Good vehicles for loading 6 am to noon

Limited waiting between noon and 6 am

 

This puts me and a number of other suppliers at an immediate disadvantage if we use our 4x4 or estate cars for delivery. This I feel penalises and restricts small businesses - unless I am missing something?? HELP !.

 

I don't think I have any choice but to take this all the way otherwise I can not deliver safely to this client at the moment unless I take our van which is 1) not cost effective and 2) its often not available.

 

I have 28 days from 16th Augusts to respond to the Notice to owner.

 

ALL HELP GREATLY APPRECIATED :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Desperately trying to get some help or information on this.

Starting with checking what ever a TRO to make sure the written directive and actual directive match and where I can find the TRO register ��

Link to post
Share on other sites

should be on the relevant council website

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CAG people,

 

I wonder if anyone can help me?

 

I was making a substantial delivery to a restaurant in Beverly ( Catering/janitorial supplies).

I was in my 4x4 as the van was delivering elsewhere. As a small company we only have one van and so I use my car when the van is not available.

 

The bay in question did have a restriction of 'goods vehicles only' but i did not see that.

The traffic warden agreed that she could see i was making a substantial delivery but said that i was using the wrong type of vehicle and issued a ticket.

 

I appealed the ticket giving the copy of the delivery note and explaining that the goods are too heavy and many to park in the multi story and walk with them.

They have rejected my appeal as I was using the wrong type of vehicle for the delivery.

 

I am not happy about this and feel this is restrictive to the tenants (Restaurant) and their other suppliers.

 

My concern is that I will need to make future deliveries in my car as I am not yet ready financially to buy anther van. Going forward I will not be able to do business with this client as the nearest parking bay that I can use is in the multi story car park round the corner and I can not park there and make multiple journeys with heavy goods.

 

Many other suppliers and small businesses deliver in estate cars and 4 x 4's for much the same reason as myself. If I can show that I am making substantial deliveries and only doing that, why can I not unload this area in the same way the vans are?

 

Does anyone have any thoughts or similar situations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...