Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Topic moved to Financial Legal Issues Forum.   When you have all the details of the debt /claim/judgment...please complete the following and post your responses back here for further advice.       Andy
    • Although I still think you will be ok on the mortgage front, it always helps to find a good Broker who can guide you around these sorts of things. 
    • Hello all   A colleague discovered he had a CCJ recorded against him by Lowell as a result of them acquiring an old Electricity Bill from around 2011.   They lodged their claim in 2019 to my colleagues old address and got a back door judgement.   I helped my colleague draft an application to set aside and it was decided by the court service to hold a telephone hearing which took place last week.   It was slightly comical.    The Judge had got my colleague on the conference call and rang the number provided by Lowell only to reach a call centre person who knew nothing about the case.  She offered to find somebody but the judge was not having it and said they had plenty of time to sort out the case and he had called the number they had provided and expected someone to be ready to handle the case.  He asked her if she was ready to deal with it.  She said she wasn't so the Judge "dismissed" her and was left speaking to my colleague only.   It then turned out that Lowell had submitted a response saying they agreed to the Set Aside providing Each party paid their own costs to which my colleague agreed.   Our application requested a set aside on the basis that the original claim was not received despite the utility having my colleague's address and for SB reasons.   The final outcome was the Set aside was ordered by the Court and the original Claim restored with 14 days to defend.   I am running the case here for any CAGers to advise and comment.   My next step is to write to the Court and Lowell asking for a copy of the original Claim Form without which it is difficult to defend.   The main details are that my colleague paid his electricity bill before moving house and indeed retained the same utility company in his new house, not something he was likely to do if he was evading them.   In any event the defence is an SB one as the original bill was around 2011 and any claim would surely have expired about 2017.   I will get back to the thread with more details.  If anybody wants to comment then all suggestions welcome.
    • All of the above but I don't think their default is going to hurt your mortgage application.
    • Unless you have already sent it – which I don't think it's clear – how about this as an alternative:    
  • 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

No signs/ leaves covering lines - PCN complaint??


Recommended Posts

Just wondering if anyone has successfully argued against a PCN when there was no sign indicating parking restrictions and leaves were covering lines?

 

I parked car for 2 weeks in a free parking zone.  It was a residential street with free parking down one side.  I parked car in the last spot at the end of the road in a dead-end.

There were 2 areas allocated for residential parking - clearly marked with black/white signs.   The car was parked in front of a lamp post and no sign was attached to that.   There were no other signs in the road - nothing to indicate restrictions or free parking.   The council website states the street is a free parking zone.

Yet when I collected the car - there were 3 tickets on the windscreen - £110/each (of £55 if pay early).   

 

Turns out that there were double yellow lines exactly where I had parked the car - but they were completely covered in a thick pile of leaves.    Only visible by kicking them.   And even then they were also faint.   There were no other lines on that side of the road.  It was a dead-end.   There is no way a normal driver would have expected there would be lines in that spot - the one spot in an otherwise free parking street.

 

I took loads of photos.   And I intend to write this weekend to try get them cancelled.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation and succeeded in cancellations?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Can you give us the street name and postcode of where you parked please? People may be able to look it up. It's possible some of your photos will be useful, but I'll leave the people in the know to ask you.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will certainly be able to have the last two cancelled on the grounds that,  since the vehicle was not moved during the whole period, it was a  'continuous contravention', where the convention is  that you cannot be punished more than once for a single offence.  The council may well reject that, but you would almost certainly win at adjudication, particularly since DYL's are 24/7 , ie not an intermittent restriction and therefore you were in contnuous contravention for the whole period you were parked there.

 

The first pcn is more contentious and would rely heavily on whether the councils pics show the leaves totally obscuring the DYL.

 

There should be pics on Richmonds website.

 

https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/

Edited by Michael Browne
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HP Mum said:

i have had a quick look at their site.

There is a difference between my photos and theirs

That doesn't tell us much! Show us. Have you looked the pics for all 3 pcns. Even if they don't back up the leaves an gle ,  they may help confirm the vehicle didn't move.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

attached are photos I took at the time of collection. 

I did first move the car and start driving off.  Then I realised i should take photos.  So I returned and took these photos - with my black car in situ and with it not in situ.    

It wasnt until I kicked the leaves that I could see there were yellow lines.   

I will see if I can now download the council pics

 

20-11-2020 car pcn pics.docx 20-11-2020 car pcn pics.pdf

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

attached are photos I took at the time of collection. 

I did first move the car and start driving off.  Then I realised i should take photos.  So I returned and took these photos - with my black car in situ and with it not in situ.    

It wasnt until I kicked the leaves that I could see there were yellow lines.   

I will see if I can now download the council pics

20-11-2020 car pcn pics.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You need to submit a challenge for each pcn (separately, but refer to the others) before 24th Nov. 1st one DYL were totally obscured by leaves, 2nd and 3rd 'continuous contravention'.

 

They will reject, but re-offer the discount. At that point you will have to decide whether to continue with  all 3, thus losing the discount or accept you were in contravention, pay the discount on the first and be prepared to dispuute the continuous ones as far as adjudication if necessary.

 

You would be risking the full penalrty on both but there have been numerous Tribunal cases to support this ground:- 2110166557, 2140191859, 2140184092, 2140234882

 

Going by your pics (and without seeing the councils) personally I'd take all 3 to adjudicaion,  you'd almost certainly win the last two and would be risking the full penalty on the 1st.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have attached the richmond photos.

in their photos the lines are showing at the end.

If the lines had shown when I parked - in daylight - i would have noticed.

 

I have a further problem.   I can't afford to pay.  

Not the discount, not the full amount.

I am on a benefit that per month equals the amount of the total of all 3 tickets full value. 

20-11-2020 Richmond pcn pics.pdf

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't really been driving.  Its why I parked in a control free zone.  This is why the discovery of these lines is such a shock to me.

I've been cycling mostly instead.  Yesterday wasn't a very good day - first these tickets and then my locked-up bike was stolen 😪

Really cut up about it all

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you challenge before 24th the pcns will be on hold until they reply. I don't know how efficient Richmond are, but it could be 5-6 weeks.(esp with covid)  If rejected, as is likely, they will allow a further 14 days for the discount, so that's 7-8 weeks before anything has to be paid. As  I said, it's only at that point will you have to decide whether to continue with  all 3, thus losing the discount or accept you were in contravention, pay the discount on the first and be prepared to dispuute the continuous ones as far as adjudication if necessary.

 

To get to adjudication , the council has to send a Notice to Owner (28days after the 14 day discount runs out,)  You then have 28days to make representations to the NtO and they then must reject within 56 days. You then have 28 days to appeal to adjudication which at the moment are taking 10-12 weeks or longer. In other words, it could be April or May before you reach adjudication with a good chance of 2nd and 3rd pcns being cancelled. But be warned you must keep on top of everything , adhere to the timesclaes for each pcn and not let things slip, it will involve a fair amount of work on your part.

 

Looking at the council pics, I can't see an adjudicator allowing an appeal on the 1st pcn on the basis of obscured DYL's

Edited by Michael Browne
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would challenge all the way !

 

Check one of my posts as I had a similar issue with my local authority , tree branches and bush covering sign. Took photos same day and a week later lo and behold the branches were cut back. Not my issue the council does not maintain the highways.

 

Looking at your photos how could you tell there were any lines?

Of course the council threw it straight back so I appealed and went to the next level and submitted my photos as evidence , they backed down then although still did not admit defeat and stated it as a goodwill gesture...

 

I got some great advice on here so don't be stressed or worried follow the guidelines on here. Either way they are going to try to force you to pay so don't give the @$$ holes an easy ride....

 

If I have the correct local authority check these links 

 

https://www.richmond.gov.uk/services/roads_and_transport/roads_and_road_works/road_and_pathway_maintenance

 

https://www.richmond.gov.uk/services/roads_and_transport/roads_and_road_works/road_and_pathway_maintenance/road_and_highways_obstuctions

 

second link has the following :

 

  • Builders' skips – check if a skip is licensed before reporting
  • Scaffolding or hoardings
  • Builders materials
  • Temporary works including traffic lights - check if temporary works are scheduled before reporting
  • Overhanging tree branches, hedges
  • Mud/debris on the road
  • Mixing concrete or mortar on the highway
  • Unauthorised vendors or traders
  • Encroachment of highway boundaries *
  • Discharge of water onto the highway
  • Blocking "Rights of Way"
  • Plants and bushes
  • Illegal signs
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks notodebt - most useful.   As a starting point in my "pcn contest" have made an official report to council of a highway obstruction.

The date to respond to the 1st ticket is 26th (discounted deadline).  Am working on my contest now.

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael - Yes, that's what I thought too - but the note on their website said 26th.   However, I have today - the 24th - submitted the complaint for the 1st pcn so all is good.  Thanks for your continued support.   Much appreciated.

 

I will address the other two pcn's tomorrow.   I guess my submission will be identical to todays?   Other than I need to add in the bit you suggested about "continuous contravention"...

 

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally , for 2nd & 3rd, I'd forget about leaves obscuring the DYL's.  

 

In the council pics taken 10 days before yours, the DYL's can be seen and there is nothing like the amount of leaves as in your pics and they wll reject on those grounds alone.

 

Far better to concentrate solely on "continuous contravention" as they then have no wriggle room and if they reject must justify why.

 

Mention that their own photographic evidence from all 3 pcn's show the vehicle in the same position, confirming that the vehicle did not move for the whole period

 

 

Edited by Michael Browne
Link to post
Share on other sites

I submitted the other two complaints on the continuous contravention grounds as advised.  I referenced the other grounds too - highway obstruction and no signs.

I wait to hear....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...