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

PCN received - unclear "no stopping" times - ** CANCELLED BY COUNCIL **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1724 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

I agree the sign is ambiguous, and I think you will probably win this, if you fight it all the way. (That's 'probably'!)

 

The sign must state the hours of no parking, and must be clear. So, the yellow sign says "No stopping 10 - 5am". Logically, that can't be 10am - 5am. So it must be 10pm - 5am. And then logically, it follows on, that you can stop to load after 5am, until 10am. If it means something other than that, it isn't clear.

 

I don't read any restriction after 10am - which is itself odd, but you have 14 days to decide what to do, so I would start by contacting the Council and asking for a copy of the Parking Order for that location. This will tell you what the true restriction is, and I would not be surprised if it's 10am - 5pm - in which case, the sign is completely faulty and you should win.

 

In any case, you can make formal representations once the Notice to Owner is issued, and this can be followed by adjudication.

 

Incidentally, what was the contravention and contravention code printed on the PCN?

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner of the car will have to make the transfer of liability - you should check with them now that they are in agreement with this - otherwise, you may have to pay it in full. It means them ticking a box on the back of the Notice to Owner and filling in your name and address. Then a new Notice to Owner gets sent out to you instead by the Council, and you're in business.

 

If you are fighting on, contact the council now and ask for a copy of the traffic order for that location. I would want to see the hours on the sign match what's written in the order, because it looks odd.

 

Adjudication hearings aren't scary. You will sit at a table with someone from the council, and the adjudicator (who isn't a judge - he or she will just be in business dress) will ask questions to understand the issue and then decide who they think is correct. It could be a bit of fun if you look at it that way. Nothing to be intimidated by - worst possible outcome, you have to pay the PCN. The council don't like the hearings as they can affect many other PCNs they are processing (eg, all the ones they are continuing to issue right at that spot) and they will be more obedient and deferential than you need to be!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
6 hours ago, Hungrydoug said:

It meets the guidance in the traffic signs manual Chapter 7:

 

"12.2.3. If the time period covers only “am” or “pm”, but not both, then “am” or “pm”, as appropriate, should be shown only against the end time."

 

Which could be read one of two ways, but there would be enough wiggle room to say it was conforming.

 

That clause describes what should be done if the sign only covers am or pm.

 

This sign doesn't cover only one of them - so the clause is not relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...