Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have no intention of providing them any comfort trust me. As you have helped alot of people in respect to DFS may I assume that some of that is in relation to this 'peeling of leather' issue. If so do you think that they are aware it is a manufacturing fault but 'wing it' so to speak for as long as possible? 
    • Morning,  phoned the court this morning. The claim was put back In front if the judge yesterday.  He has ordered a direction's hearing for May 4th via telephone.
    • You can only do your best, tnook. We'll support you no matter what.   The people on the other end of the line are only human beings and you're worth as much as they are. Just go through your arguments and don't be intimidated.     HB
    • I’m wondering how and why this person has got involved? She states that she works for West Midlands police in the cyber bullying/online fraud department. How would this have come to her attention?   The only picture that I have seen of someone on here was posted on Facebook 6 years ago - maybe 17 at the time but would be 24 now. No one is physically threatening this person or has anyone contacted him through Facebook (have they?) We, as victims, are merely conducting our own research, as it does not seem to be of interest to the police - more a civil matter.   My son in law holds the same position as the author with Staffordshire Police and he told me that he would be dismissed if he provided this information online. In fact, any official contact from the police must be made through the appropriate channels, including the officer’s full professional details. This is not an official police warning.  Knowing what I do about this slippery car dealer and the fact that HE follows these threads, I would be more likely to believe that this has something to do with him.
    • We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 262 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

I parked my car in a residents and shared use parking bay which permitted residence as well as those who pay a fee.

I hadn’t noticed the time started at 8 o’clock and paid online at 9:44 for an hour and at 10:56 for 2 hours costing £5.60. 

there was an observation of five minutes from 08:17 and at 08 22 at which time the PCN was issued and attached to the car.


despite it being in an appropriate bay and not causing any obstruction or displacing any residences as there were many vacant places when I parked

I went to collect the car, the vehicle was also authorised for removal.

This occurred at 9:37am after obtaining authorisation for its removal.

The council states this occurs 30minutes after the PCN has been issued. 


Once I had discovered it had been taken to the pound and got a cab

had to pay for the PCN £65 and an additional £200 for the release of the car.


Furthermore, in order to drive the car out of the pound I had to take out additional insurance of £250 as I had borrowed the car and was driving under my own insurance policy which the pound claimed wasn’t sufficient.


I submitted an appeal which was rejected on the 5th of May stating that under the traffic management 2004 I received a PCN because I didn’t have a permit on display in the city and the Civil Enforcement Officer officer checked his computer and did not see any payments made by the PayByPhone method.


I noted at the time I returned to collect the car there were many spaces and they were at the time apart during the night.

It’s unlikely that a member of the local residents complained about the lack of parking space therefore causing an obstruction. 


I am not aware of any other council that acts so soon after issuing a PCN for the removal of the car. almost simultaneously to issuing a PCN.


On what grounds can this be appealed again? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you any proof about the insurance being required before you could take the car away?

This applies both ways

ie did you have any car third party insurance on your policy and can you prove they rejected this assertion and refused to release the car without other insurance?


It is normal that any vehicle being removed must cause an obstruction but obstruction can be whatever they want it to be so your route is to take this to the parking tribunal.

this will cost you nothing.


The RTA refers to ROADS but a parking space on a road is still the road.

If it was a proper BAY then that may well be only lawful if the borough has a policy on off street parking and the council can't use the law for "illigitate purpose" 

(you ned to look this up and see what cases apply

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice but I did have fully comp on my car that allows me to drive any car. I have no proof of the assertion but the broker I told him what they said and he told me that its true and that they did specialised insurance to drive the car out of the pound boundary which seems ridiculous given that it was a few yards.


The bay was the usual white road markings designating the area of road for shared use. Its not an off-road bay. It just seems that the 'authorisation' for code 12 criteria of it still being present 30mins after issuing a PCN seems harsh when there was just occupancy rather than obstruction. I will look up as mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care what the broker says, what proof do you have that the popund refused to accept your insurance?

now as it was on the public highway it will be harder to argue that their actions were for an illigitimate purpose so start reading up on it, esp the interesting cases at PATAS and the other parking tribunals appeals

for example, Holder v city of westminster 18th feb 2006 is almost identical to your case and was determined as unlawful removal.


appeal to the Traffic Adjudicator.

Edited by ericsbrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammersmith and Fulham v Mrs Douthit is another good one, the council failed to use their discretion and couldnt prove that the vehicle was causing an obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tedd

It looks like you were given the statutory time before the car was lifted.

However the insurance thing really does not sound right.


I cant see how the insurance being fully comp would be relevant, maybe it didn't insure you for bumps on private land.

Did you ask which sections of your current insurance were deficient. Also who are the new insurers? Did you get a new certificate, is the pound a broker?


Why couldn't a member of their staff deliver the car to the kerbside?


Did you pay cash or credit/debit card, I am hoping the latter.




Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to you being insured to drive, every vehicle on the road has to have a policy covering it. You wouldn't be able to legally drive a vehicle if the vehicle has no policy covering it. Is that the situation you were in? No-one had a policy for that specific car?


On the question of the tow, when you were towed you were also issued a PCN for the parking contravention. What was the contravention code/description as stated on the PCN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That the owner of the borrowed car didn't actually have it insured is what I thought the issue probably was.  I understand it's quite a common problem when a car is impounded for no insurance, and the owner has to send a mate to collect the car from the pound, (wrongly) thinking the mate's "drive any other car" policy covers them.  It doesn't if the car isn't already insured by the owner - which was the problem in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car is registered in my name but it’s for my father to use and he has the car insured in his name. I am not a named driver. I have fully comprehensive insurance on another car that gives me Third a Party cover on other cars. This is the situation I explained to the staff at the pound. They insisted verbally that I needed to have my father come and drive it out or I need insurance on this car that covers driving within a car pound. I thought by virtue of the broker stating that they still Specialise  in these circumstances I didn’t question it anymore. They certainly didn’t suggest driving it to the gate/kerbside. 

The contravention states on the PCN was 12. Obtaining information on the removal was more difficult as a Enfield only show you pictures of the car and the PCN. I Couldn’t get details on the time authorisation was granted, the time of physically removing the car. 

I have no written proof regarding the inform given to me verbally by the Pound staff. They provided me with information on how to appeal. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you absolutely certain your dad's car is insured?  (Don't take his word for it - he might be mistaken - and don't think "I know it's insured" - you might be mistaken.  Check it on askmid to make sure).


If it is insured and your insurance really does permit you to drive other insured cars, I'd definitely complain to the council that you were forced to spend £xxx to take out one-off insurance just to get the car out of the car pound.  As far as evidence of what you were told is concerned, if you can prove (1) the car was insured, (2) that your policy allowed you to drive other insured cars, and (3) that you paid £xxx to take out additional insurance, why on earth would you buy the extra insurance in (3) if you thought you were covered, other than that you were wrongly told you needed additional insurance?  Do you see what I mean?  Why spend additional money buying something you don't need because you've already got it?


I'm not aware you need special insurance to recover a car from a pound - but maybe I'm completely wrong...


(Did you have the insurance details with you when you went to the pound?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...