Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

Ticket for Bus Lane Driving (Reading) Via Lease Company


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6359 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,

 

just had a call from the wife to say the Car Leasing Company have sent a letter asking for £59 for the following:

 

a) £30 fine for driving in bus lane at Station approach, Reading 11th September

 

b) £29 admin charge incurred by them in paying the fine on my behalf

 

:mad:

 

Several points here:

 

1) I'd like the chance to defend myself as I cant remember being there then (although I work in that area)

 

2) Even if I did it, I dont know Reading well at all, and sure as heck wasnt aware I was in a bus lane as I'm the first to curse people who use them for short cuts illegally

 

3) £29 admin charge??!!! Penalty??

 

 

What say you everybody?

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty normal for a charge of that type on matters like these. Everyday car rental companies do similar as I found out when I forgot to pay a congestion charge when returning a car one morning. I think that you will find that the charge rate for occasions like this are actually set out in writing in the paperwork so you agree to them when you sign. Certainly in the rental car case it was clearly set out that the fee would be £30 for any admin to chase fines etc.

 

As for the Bus Lane thingy, chances are the photo was from behind so the first course of action is to request the picture. If it shows you you are banged to rights however if the photo is from the rear then you have a chance of fighting.

 

In law at the moment there is a grey area in as much as by telling the authority who the driver was you are in fact, incriminating yourself without first being proven guilty. There are a lot of test cases going on at the moment to try and get this changed as under European law, you have a right to silence and it is therefore down to the prosecuting authority to prove it was you driving. Very difficult to do if there is no photographic evidence no matter whose car it is!

 

Give you an example, my friend and his wife were travelling north on the A1 at night and got flashed by a Gatso. They were required to inform the authority as to whom was driving. Their reply was that they shared the driving, swapping numerous times so had no idea who was driving at the time. In the absence of any photo of teh driver the case was dropped.

 

In any event, I have got myself off bus lane fines and CC fines by engaging in lenghty correspondance. Keep it up long enough and eventually the prosecuting authority will make proceedural mistakes and render the fine unenforcable.

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments!

 

 

Main problem is that they(Lease Co) have paid the fine and assumed I'm guilty, now want the money and admin fee from me without giving me a chance to speak up for myself!

 

As for the 'standard for a lease co charge and in the terms I agreed to' - sounds remarkably similar to a bank charge, eh? ;-)

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, penalty charges where two parties are bound by a contract is unlawful and can be challenged. You are only liable for the actual loss incurred. The parking ticket, however, should be disputed with the council and, if refunded, should be paid back to the leasing company.

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of penalty charges vs liquidated losses is related to breaches of contract. To contest the charge on those grounds you would have to show that in being caught in a bus lane (or committing some other driving offence) you were in breach of your contract with the car hire company.

Lloyds TSB, Total Charges £900, Claim Filed for £1379 - Settled

 

Sainsbury's Bank Credit Card, Total Charges £90 - Settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...