Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And yes, they state their client is EON and that they can return the debt to EON who can either register a default or take me to court. 
    • Thank you. The npower debt was from 2019/2020 until EON took over the account late 2021.   npower had set a DCA on me even though I owed them nothing. I spoke to a customer service agent, following up by email, who confirmed I was in credit . I made a complaint to head office who sent a barrage of emails, changing the amounts each time. According to them, I owed £279.   The debt grew to what it is now as first npower and then EON subsequently failed to put a payment arrangement and direct debit in place to pay off this supposed sum and my ongoing bills.   I was very ill with Covid, struggling in lockdown with a disabled child and informed them of all this.   EON stopped their legal action when I took them to the ombudsman as this was part of my complaint and requested remedy but I have not received a notice of discontinuance.    I would like to set up my own dd to pay them off but am concerned they could still take legal action. I am on a low income and can’t afford to pay them more than a token amount each month.   
    • Thank you guys! @lookinforinfo thank you for the case, it seem to similar with my case which is gold. @Nicky Boy shouldn't be ICO?   Personal data breaches: a guide ICO.ORG.UK   For CAG I found this  The Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) is an independent body which provides expert advice on the use of confidential patient information. This includes providing advice to us, the Health Research Authority (HRA) for research uses. It also provides advice to the Secretary of State for Health for non-research uses.
    • HB - yes I agree it is about their paperwork and advice.  I need to be clear in my head what my complaint is.  And what a result looks like for me? (They should never have placed me with the shark with whom I've had all sorts of issues - but I don't think that's my complaint focus -v-  broker) 
    • HB - all sorts of issues have been in court; the main one re repo remains in court, no resolution.  They all stem really from bad advice by broker.  Indeed, but if the Ombudsman is prepared to accept the complaint, it would be about the advice given by the broker and their paperwork, wouldn't it? You seem to be asserting that the problems you've had stem from their bad advice. HB
  • 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
      • 160 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

PCN - Inadequate signage


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1664 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 Caggers..

Just looking for people's thoughts on a parking fine I received on the 1st July for overstaying on a 2 hr only area.

At the moment I have received the NTO as I challenged this on inadequate signage which was turned down by LA ( no surprise) .

 

So here is a quick breakdown:

I have parked in this street near to my local station for a number of months, no problems no parking fines.

One side has white markings for residents only displayed on the road with accompanying signs so I avoid these bays.

The opposite side has white markings but no corresponding signs so I park there along with other commuters.

 

These bays are near the bottom end of the street.

Adjacent to a cattle market seperated by stone columns and a metal fence.

There are a number of large trees,bushes etc on the side I parked.

 

1st July parked up at 8am , returned at 5pm and found parking ticket.

Reason was overstay on a 2 hr only bay.

 

On the same day  I took pictures of car location, trees, bays etc.

I was parked close to a group of large trees/bushes which were overhanging on to road, checked around for parking restrictions and could not see any my side, on the opposite side was signage to say residents only bays which did not correspond to the bay I was using as these are unmarked.

I left vehicle and exited the street at the bottom end.

 

I decided to park elsewhere but on investigation a week later I went back to check if any signage.

Where I had been parked the bushes/trees had been cut back and there was a small 2hr only sign, also half way up the street on a small column was another 2hr only sign but I would not have seen this as I exited the bottom end of the street.

I took photos of the newly revealed sign. 

 

So I disputed the original fine on the grounds of signage along with printed out pictures before/after . T

his was turned down on the grounds that a sign was on of the columns half way up the street ( about 30-40 feet ) but as explained I exited bottom end of street so would not have seen this sign from where my car was parked due to overhang of trees/bushes.

 

I know it was only £25 which I could have paid but I intend to fight this as I hate my LA anyway ( wasteful with taxpayers money ) and also believe they do not have a case to answer with the photographic evidence.

 

Anybody else had success with insufficient signage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, if your case is strong. However if there was a sign clearly visible 30-40 feet along, I don't think you will win an appeal.

 

You would be expected to go and look for the sign when you park, to find out what the restriction is for that bay.

Just walking away (the other way) is not going to give you much of a case to argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi..

Thanks for the advice.

IMO the signage was hidden well away, even the supposed sign on display.

Will try and post up some pics.

I am currently at the NTO stage.

 

Find attached pics to show where I was parked adjacent to the trees.

 

As stated I was at the bottom end and just in front of my car black the black Honda is the sign but this is behind all the leaves as can be seen in pic CAG3.

 

Pic CAG 4 shows the next two columns up and as you can see the columns here between the Merc and Astra do not have any signs.

 

Just after the Astra is the next sign but as you can see from pic CAG3 it is halfway up the street and hidden by overhanging branches.

 

Let me know your thoughts...

 

CAG_3.jpg

CAG4.jpg

 

As mentioned I exited bottom end of street so did not and could not see the sign where the Astra is parked just in front of the Merc....

 

As mentioned there are no signs on opposite side of street.

 

A week later the bush in front of my car was cut back and this showed the small parking sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok...it's Waverly Terrace in Darlington , off Clifton Road..

 

I will try and upload after pics but may be restricted by size...

 

Pic2.jpg

 

The last pic was taken a week later , my vehicle was parked where the vauxhall is on the left.

 

On my original picture the sign was not visible and you can clearly see where the bush has been cropped right down to reveal it now.

 

I sent this and three other pics in from various angles.

The LA response is that there is a sign further up the road and I should have seen that one.

That was there only response.

 

Sorry mistake ! I was parked on the right where the Vauxhall is not the left....brain freeze..

 

Pic4.thumb.jpg.799d2ba5af87532b967c7fc2dfd12965.jpg

 

The last pic shows from across the road a week later , with all foliage cut back.

The next two columns up have no sign on, the next available sign is behind the white car in the top right of the pic.

 

There are no time restricted signs across the road.

If you compare from the first pic I posted to the last it is quite clear the overhang has been cut back to reveal the sign.

 

I sent all these pics to the LA and they dismissed it , as I mentioned I should have been aware of the sign which is up near the white car.

 

Visible? I think not!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly the latest in  GSV is from 2014:

https://goo.gl/maps/P2H7KwpyDSfcxwX77

even so it was partly obscured then

 

If you have already received the NtO,, with the discount now gone, you hve nothing to lose by making formal representations to that and then, if they still reject, going to adjudication.

 

Obviously it's pure coincidence that the bush has   been trimmed immediately after your informal challenge!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi..

Yes it is at NTO stage so I submitted my objection online to the LA.

I'm prepared to go adjudication as well.

 

I find it ridiculous that the LA expect me to go and find a hidden sign when it should be in clear view.

As stated I have these before and after pics within the space of a week to prove on the day I received the ticket the foliage was overgrown.

 

Let's see what happens.

 

Thanks for your advice so far..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you will win this one. If the sign was hidden, you are basically arguing that you did not know there was a sign there at all. That being the case, the onus is on you as the driver to look around and find out what the restriction is. To do so, all you need to do is walk up along the bay until you find a sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi..

I appreciate your honest opinion ,that said I did take a look around but did not noticeably see a sign.

 

I had been using this street to park months previously without issue.

As mentioned i exited at the bottom of street.

I could base an argument on why there were no signs on the columns nearby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's a question rather than an argument. The answer they are bound to give is that they have to put signs at suitable, convenient places, and the appearance of multiple signs will annoy residents (people do complain about almost anything).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jamberson..thanks for the advice.

 

I agree multiple signs may annoy the local residents.

 

I still believe that the signage was not clearly available on the day and it is down to the LA to ensure those signs are clearly displayed.

 

Ironic that a week later all those bushes and foliage had been cut right back.

 

If the LA deemed the signage was displayed correctly in the first place why cut back that foliage later on that week?

That is what I am basing my argument on. 

 

I am at the NTO stage now and have submitted that reason for not paying the original fine.

Let's see how that goes.

I have 56 days.

 

Reading through the forums I can see that other LA's have failed to comply with the 56 day timeline and consequently had to quash the fine due to  procedural impropriety...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So just an update!

 

I sent off the formal representation letter and got a letter back from the LA today dated 19th. 

 

They quote

" I have established that the signage next to your vehicle was obscured by foliage which has now been cut back

however there are bay markings on the ground which does signify a restriction in place and the sign on the wall less than 2 metres from your vehicle is visible.

 

However on this occasion I have cancelled the penalty charge and you will hear nothing further about this matter"

 

So a result !!!

 

Still annoyed that the LA dismissed my original response along with pictured evidence.

Thanks to all who posted on here...donation coming over today...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

like most circumstances, there are precedents that can be considered so i think you would have a reasonable chance of winning this one anyway.  Inadequare signage covers a lot of scenarios

However as the bay is clearly marked then it is reasonable fo the council to expect you to go and look for the relevant signage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ericsbrother said:

like most circumstances, there are precedents that can be considered so i think you would have a reasonable chance of winning this one anyway.  Inadequare signage covers a lot of scenarios

However as the bay is clearly marked then it is reasonable fo the council to expect you to go and look for the relevant signage.

I agree on the bay being marked. I suppose in future it will certainly make me check more clearly. I would still expect any council to make signs more clearly available.I won my point with them so that is a bonus..

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...