Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Illegal Tyres


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1770 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,

purchased a car from a large dealership 3 weeks ago today,

had the car serviced on today

 

it has come to light that I have been driving with 2 illegal rear Tyres.

I have spoken to the dealership and produced an invoice and covering letter with the required proof of Tyre depth etc

the dealership have now back tracked and said they only are responsible for electrical or mechanical faults not Tyres.

 

Any advice please would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

really .....they sold a car that was not road legal.?

so wheres the MOT they had done and the 151 point checks [most claim to do] results that prove they were legal.

 

 

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

MOT done in March said near the legal limit which is fine

I was going to replace the 2 anyway

but for the garage to find they were below the 1.6mm limit seems wrong on the dealership part.

 

I have given them both invoice and letter stating they were below the legal limit

they say they are only responsible for electrical and mechanical faults.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well no

what they are saying is they are not responsible for fair wear and tear I expect.

 

in 3 weeks how many miles have you done is p'haps the relevant issue. then?

 

they are not duty bound no if they WERE legal upon sale, though rather cheeky not to change them.

 

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

Less than 100 miles not enough miles or time to wear the Tyres enough according to the garage. I’m more angry I could have got up to a £5000 fine and 6 points, what would the dealership responsibilities be then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only got the car 3 weeks ago, had the car serviced as it was coming up to the service date and was advised by the garage that the Tyres were illegal so I think it’s cut and dry really. The fact is I was allowed to drive a car off the forecourt with 2 bald tyres and I was told by dealer the car had been checked and surely Tyres should have been part of the check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you drive? An F1 car....the point is they were bald when I purchased the car. I trust the garages judgment and experience and if they say they were illegal when I got the car then that’s good enough for me, after all driven less than 100 miles.....blimey you must have a heavy foot and over use the hand break to burn out 2 new Tyres in under an hour!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dealer would have taken ownership of the car which would have had a current MOT at the time of purchase.Because they didn't carry out a fresh MOT(which I don't suppose they are required to)..they would have no requirement to check the tyres.Now if they sold the car to you and stated it had recently been serviced by themselves..that would be a different matter and they would be liable.

 

Possibly an oversight of the dealer..and subject to age and value of the car could have possibly pointed it out at the time of purchase and offered to part pay for replacements or in full subject to the value of vehicle.. 

 

just my opinion

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to upset you with blunt truth, but as said, maybe this is an oversight from the dealer and they didn't know the condition of the tyres. 

So if you were the dealer, would you trust someone after a week to say the tyres were illegal at point of sale?

Sorry to say, but even the most clueless car buyer looks at the tyres (tyre kickers springs to mind).

However,  as you paid 13k for the car, the dealer might just give you 2 new tyres and forget about it. (But I would be surprised)

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dragonfly29 said:

Thanks Andy, sound thinking but still bloody frustrating after spending 13k with them now arguing over £170 bill for Tyres.

But you said in Post#3 that you were going to replace them anyway?  It seems that you bought the car knowing that they were 'near' the legal limit and clearly had made a mental note that this bill was therefore imminent.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dragonfly29 said:

Thanks Andy, sound thinking but still bloody frustrating after spending 13k with them now arguing over £170 bill for Tyres.

 

 

It is when you spent that much......I had a very similar experience...mine went back to the dealer for its first MOT (7 months after Purchase) and it failed on a brake caliper.The dealer replaced the caliper and stated that because i had only had the car several months it was free of charge and should have been picked up previously.

 

How long they had the vehicle up to selling me unknown and if they had done a pre sale service is also unknown ..suppose its down to the Dealer and service reputation

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ReasonableRon said:

But you said in Post#3 that you were going to replace them anyway?  It seems that you bought the car knowing that they were 'near' the legal limit and clearly had made a mental note that this bill was therefore imminent.  

Yes Ron, I did know that in the MOT it said near the limit and yes I was going to replace but........as I keep saying the garage that did the service said there was no way that in 2 weeks and 2 days to be precise and not being driven for around 90 miles could they possible so far under the legal limit. When you buy a car and keep it in good mechanical order yes you know that bills are “imminent” but not when it should have been picked up by the dealership if they had done all the checks that they said they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, king12345 said:

Sorry to upset you with blunt truth, but as said, maybe this is an oversight from the dealer and they didn't know the condition of the tyres. 

So if you were the dealer, would you trust someone after a week to say the tyres were illegal at point of sale?

Sorry to say, but even the most clueless car buyer looks at the tyres (tyre kickers springs to mind).

However,  as you paid 13k for the car, the dealer might just give you 2 new tyres and forget about it. (But I would be surprised)

Considering the wear was on the inside tyre wall and not having a ramp or lift in my back pocket I unfortunately did not want to crawl under a car in a showroom. By the way no tyre kicker here, I did my research on the car I wanted and price I wanted to pay, found a dealer with good customer feedback and took the car for a test drive. All I did wrong was trust a car dealership and as you say maybe if they valued a customer they would offer to pay for the tyres, but I suppose we can put dealerships in the same boat as estate agents....blunt truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

problem with tyres is that you are responsible for their condition the moment you get on to the public highway.

Sorry to say that dealership cant be held responsible for them now, if you had spotted they were illegal the moment you went to dive off then not only would they have to replace they woudl likely be prosecuted for selling an unroadworthy vehicle rather than just having to swallow a small added expense.

you know what you can do- leave appropriate comment on all social media and review sites.

you might get an offer os new tyres then

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused here. One comment says tread below 1.6 mm and other comment says fault is on inner side wall---which is it??

Also, any half decent dealer should not be selling a 13K car with tyres remotely near end of life.

Had I seen an MOT advisory prior to purchase, it would have been a condition of sale that advisories be rectified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. 

 

What was the mileage recorded on the MOT & what was the mileage on your purchased invoice. 

 

One MOT tester might advise at their discretion, another might fail a car. It depends on their stats.

 

Tyres will fail if they are presented as dangerous on that day and that day only. 

 

When tyres are low on tread they can wear out very very quickly, just as KING has advised you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...