Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Contravention 26 - Parking straight onto a yellow line

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2002 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts



I received a PCN Code 26 for parking straight onto a single yellow line.


This is a quiet section of road in front of the Windmill Pub in Clapham Common.

I've lived in the area for 6 years and park here every saturday morning, and always pull nose into the spots, as all the other cars do as well.


I received a PCN code 26 "Vehicle parked more than 50 cms from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place." However as the pictures show, i literally could not have been closer to the yellow line.


The parking as been done this way for years and years - and it feels odd that i received the ticket at 8:35am on a saturday morning, when the parking is only restricted Monday - Friday.


I saw the parking attendant later on giving more unsuspecting car owners tickets for the same thing

- i asked him why i have received one when i've been fine parking there for over six years.

He said that it was because my wheel is more than 50cms away from the yellow line.

I have searched the highway code but can't find anything that says this must be done.


I did refute the ticket initially, however Lambeth council upheld the charge.


Do i have any grounds for fighting this?


Thank you in advance!






Link to post
Share on other sites

can you pop those into ONE multipage PDF please

read upload

so we can zoom and rotate.



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

The contravention occurs when a vehicle waits more than the specified distance from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place.


The CEO is either ignorant or being economical with the truth. There is nothing in the reguklations that mentions wheels. it's any part of your vehicle and the councils photos clearly show your car within 50cms of the SYL


Post up your reps and Lambeths rejection letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

The regulation prohibits the waiting of a vehicle where:

(a) the vehicle is on the carriageway of a road and wholly or partly within a special parking area; and


(b) no part of the vehicle is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway; and


© the vehicle is not wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of a road in respect of which the waiting of vehicles is specifically authorised


Both your and the councils photos confirm you were parked within 50cms NB (b) which mentions 'no part of the vehicle' nothing to do with wheels at all .(although to be fair rejection letter makes no mention)


Wait for the NtO and make representations

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree, the reg is for parking too far away from the kerb ( clobbers people double parking in Sth Kensington). If you have committed an offence it would be obstruction but that can apply to any vehicle for almost any reason if a police officer says so and nowt to do with a CEO.

Formal appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Hello all,


Well, Lambeth are upholding the PCN. I'm still baffled, they said it's because i'm more than 50cms away from the kerb. I've attached their formal response. At this point, i think i'll just have to pay it, unless anyone has had some positive experiences with the Tribunal appeal?


Many thanks in advance



Link to post
Share on other sites

well, no car sold today is less tha 50cm wide so that argument is flawed.

Also have a gander to see if the area is designated as on street parking or parking bay.


The other thing to do is look up the specificatiosn for the lines on the road, they have a minimum width and so forth.

Check to see if the ends of the paint lines are terminated correctly.

If not them it isnt a designated on street parking area and the 50cm rule wouldnt apply.


Get digging, it isnt that long since that bit of the road belonged to the brewery and the parking zone is on the other side of the road sop the plate you have photographed doesnt apply.

I cant see any plates limiting the parking times for the SYL and all of the other vehicles on goggleyes are parked as you were, which has been the custom since I lived there 40 years ago.


I think you stand a very good chance of getting this knocked back, you should use the term "dereliction" when it comes to them arguing about which way round the car should be and anyways, I'm sure it is the wrong application/understanding of the supposed offence

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in the outcome of this one. If you do go to a tribunal, please would you come back and tell us what the ruling was.


It seems from what I can find online that Michael's point is correct - in essence, if any part of the vehicle is closer than 50cm to the kerb, you are not in contravention. That doesn't make sense to me, but it seems to be how the regs are worded, in which case you are not in contravention.


One thing you might try meantime is calling the council's parking section and just asking if they could clarify the rules. Explain what happened and ask why you are in contravention - see what they say. It might clarify things, or it might make them withdraw the charge - you never know your luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...