Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

Fortitude

Data Protection Gone Mad

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 309 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Just over a year ago my wife was driving me into town in her car on a day when the ground was snow covered. My wife stopped at the foot of a hill when she saw that a car half way up the hill had stopped and was clearly in difficulties. The car then began to slide back down the hill very slowly and with cars behind us, my wife had no way of moving out of the way. The sliding car came to a halt when it bumped into our car. Driver admitted fault and exchanged details.

 

A few days later got the go-ahead to have the car repaired and paid the £95 excess to the repairers when the repair was complete. Contacted wife’s insurance company to ask how to reclaim the excess and was told that we would have to reclaim from the other drivers insurance company which they said was Aviva. Aviva was not the insurance company named by the driver.

 

However, phoned Aviva and because they said that the details we had provided were wrong they would not discuss the case and that we should again contact our own insurance. And yet we had provided the drivers name, the registration, phone number and the other relevant details as given by the driver.

 

Contacted our own insurance again by email to verify or correct the details of the other driver and were shocked when they replied that because of the data protection act, the could not provide the other drivers details. Phoned the Ombudsman and was told that he could not understand why they would not provide the details because these were the details that were required in an RTC and in any case could be accessed online. Own insurance wouldn’t budge.

 

Just received our insurance renewal which logs the bump as being my wife’s fault.

Data protection has indeed gone mad. Aviva wouldn’t discuss because we gave the wrong details and our own insurance wouldn’t provide the details either because of data protection. Any advice?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I suppose it's going to be a bit complicated. I suggest that you contact Aviva in writing with the driver details and make the claim. Make it clear in the letter that these are the details which have been provided by your own insurer and give your own insurer's name and policy number.

 

The point is to get a written response from Aviva telling you that you have the wrong details. At that point you should contact your own insurer in writing and tell them that they have given you the wrong details and you want the right details. See what they say in writing and then come back here.

 

After sending a letter, you should wait no more than seven days before sending a follow-up. If you are able to do this by email then so much the better.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your initial post you say that the drivers exchanged details. Do you still have the paper on which these deatails of the other driver were noted and did these include the insurance company and policy number?

 

Were these details the same as those that you subsequently obtained from your own company?

 

I am have difficulty understanding why you are doing the running with Arriva when it is your insurance company who should be claiming the repair costs from the third party. They should also be assisting you in recovering your excess and any other expenses to which you have been subject.

 

It is not unusual for claims for repair on your vehicle to result in a 'fault' claim on renewal, until such time as their costs are met by the third party.

Edited by Gick
punctuation

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only detail our insurance provided was that the other drivers insurance company was Aviva. They claimed that they could not provide the rest because of data protection. Aviva claimed that the details I provided which the driver had supplied did not match their details and therefore they couldn’t discuss the matter further. I still have the piece of paper with the drivers details minus the policy number which he never provided. He also gave the wrong insurer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Gick. I don't understand why your insurer isn't dealing with this. That's what you pay them for, I would have thought.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just discovered that our insurance company closed the case months ago and now it’s too much hassle to continue. That said will take up with Aviva in the belief that the wrong details were given by the driver. Thanks for the input guys.:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did not provide the policy details and the company name is in question, you could report this to the police as failing to provide details after an accident. Although it is twelve months ago, they may follow it up as it is possible that he was NOT insured and also provide a reference number for your insurance company to support your claim against the third party.

 

You need to push your insurance company.


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our posts crossed.

 

If your insurance company closed the case without reference to you, the only hassle that they will have is from the Insurance Ombudsman if you are minded to pursue it. As you will have increased premiums for some years because of this claim it would be worth your while threatening to report them unless they reopen the claim!


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can check the insurance details of the other party here:

 

http://m.askmid.com/mt/www.askmid.com/mobile/

 

however the problem seems to be aviva trying to wiggle out of the claim by mentioning the dpa.

in reality you don't need the driver details, aviva would have to cover even if the car had been stolen.

your insurance is also playing dirty by upping your premium for a non fault accident because they don't want the hassle to deal with aviva.

i would write to your insurance reminding them that they must pursue a refund from aviva and if they don't it's their problem.

the accident must be recorded as a non fault and zero cost so the premium should increase only by a bit.

also give trouble to aviva, but don't insist on knowing who the driver was, but telling them that they must meet their legal obligations as the vehicle's insurer.

if they don't bulge ask for a final decision and go to the ombudsman again.

if they don't reply within 8 weeks go to the ombudsman, that will cost them.

if you don't get any joy after going to the ombudsman, repeat the process again so they can waste more money.

both insurance companies are at fault here for not dealing with the matter.

remember, it doesn't matter who the driver was, so don't ask again.

you need to concentrate on getting aviva to cover your entire claim so your insurance premium can be reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...