Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The return under the consumer rights act of the item bought would have to be at the expense of the retailer. If the dealer themselves has arranged for an MOT at their own preferred garage – then frankly I would be prepared to cough up another 50 quid and go get another MOT at a garage of your choice. I think this would be a good move before you try anything. It's still very early days and say you are well within your 30 days. Find yourself an MOT station with a good reputation and tell them that you want them to be particularly exigent because there are questions over the condition of the vehicle. If you get MOT which fails I would point out some serious defects, then this is grist to your mill. This may seem to be a nuisance – but given that so far you have cut corners to save time and money, I think that you will have to treat this as payback time. Just because nobody took the trouble to be careful when buying the car, doesn't mean that some care and preparation shouldn't be taken when preparing to challenge the dealer and maybe to return it. If you don't want to tell your partner that you told him so, then bring him here so that he can see that we think that he's acted quite irresponsibly in the way that he has chucked his money around. Now there is a price to pay in terms of time, money, stress, uncertainty. Your partner now wants to try and cut more corners by compromising but you don't really know what you are compromising over. Get the MOT and the check-over which I've suggested so that you understand exactly what you've bought and then you could understand what sort of compromises you might be prepared to make. If the vehicle fails us MOT for some reason rather then I would be looking to recover not only the cost the vehicle, but the cost of the MOT failure, the cost of travelling to Bristol to purchase it and the cost of driving back with it. In other words, if the vehicle is worth rejecting then there is no reason why you should be out of pocket at all.  
    • Thank you for the advice.   She is just waiting to get the green light on the move and rang and spoke to them to get some details.
    • Bargain Cars Bristol (also trades as Southwest Vans and Commercials). They're around 55 miles away; Bristol is the nearest place to us which has a decent amount of car dealerships.   My partner has (and had previously), yes. He's the very opposite of me - doesn't research endlessly, doesn't always err on the side of caution. I'm not in a financial position to buy a car, but need one for a new job, so the deal was that he paid for it but I wasn't to interfere with my 'over-cautiousness'. Yes, he's regretting that now! (I have so far managed to refrain from saying 'I told you so'). If it was up to me, I'd spend 3 months researching the history of car, dealership, MOT testing garage etc before buying, which is why he usually ends up taking over.   Apologies, the dealer themselves didn't carry out the MOT, but they booked it in at a garage of their choice (which appears to be a couple of miles away from their business). Personally, I don't trust any MOT carried out by the dealer's garage of choice as there were no advisories on the car that had a blow-out either (I did report that garage after the blow-out, so hopefully it was assessed and action was taken).   The ad doesn't explicitly state that, but the dealer stated it verbally (which obviously I can't prove now). Their own website's ad is still visible here, but the one on eBay (which is the one we saw) has been deleted, and I foolishly don't seem to have stored a copy of it.   So, within the first 30 days I have the right to reject without having to accept a repair option, from day 31 up to 6 months I have to allow one repair attempt before having the right to reject? Is that correct? My OH wants to 'compromise' with the dealer and say that if they process a refund immediately, we'll return the vehicle today at our own cost, but if they are unable to refund today then they will have to collect the vehicle from us instead (in line with our statutory rights). However, this section of the CRA confuses me - doesn't this mean that we have to return it as stated on our receipt?    
    • I know this but a few COVID related problems have knocked us for six. So i'll see what the judge says tomorrow. Regarding the letter it seems they are dragging up stuff already covered and cleverly wording it and there are some points that are incorrect.
    • You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).   This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about). There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.   If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR. There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?   An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!). In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).   Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??). Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).   None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years. Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that : a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).   All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

UKCPM vanishing windscreen PCN - Private estate road in Gravesend, Kent - at odds with management letter saying o to park..


Recommended Posts

Received a PCN from UKCPM - nothing on the window; just sent in the post to me as keeper.

 

In 2019 the management company of the estate roads sent residents a letter relaxing parking conditions and saying UKCPM had been instructed to focus on ticketing inconsiderate parking e.g. blocking drives, pavements, junctions etc. but otherwise ok to park on the roadway. This letter referred to residents complaining about excessive/unreasonable ticketing from UKCPM.

 

Letter goes onto say tickets are at UKCPM's discretion. UKCPM's pre-existing signage remained in place after the letter, saying no parking on roadways at all, at any time. Following the letter, the car was regularly parked for more than year in the roadway until it suddenly got a ticket. 

 

In addition, the PCN has an incorrect location, naming a nearby road as opposed to the actual road that the car was parked.

 

Please can someone advise if parking rules/guidelines in the estate management company's letter take precedence over UKCPM's signage and given the PCN was issued for simply parking on the roadway? - not blocking anything or violating the rules in the estate mgt co. letter. Also, if the incorrect location in the PCN is relevant to an appeal/defence?

 

I prefer to appeal now (UKCPM/IAS) as I dont want to wait many months for small claims case as i want to continue parking in the roadway and want to avoid the potential for hundreds of PCNs going to court, which could be risky. 

 

Happy to upload the letter and PCN redacted if useful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

do not appeal, total waste of time.

 

why not contact the Management co and get them to cancel the PCN...their/your contract trumps any private parking scammers speculative invoice.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still have the 2019 letter from the management company? 

 

If you could post it up with identifying details (including management company name) covered up that would be helpful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

Thanks for your responses so far. Here's requested info and attached PCN and Estate Mgt Co letter redacted...

 

1 Date of the infringement 10 May
 

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 11 May

 

3 Date received 13 May
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Yes
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes (very dark/almost unreadable on the PCN)

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Not yet
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A
 

7 Who is the parking company? UKCPM

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Private estate road in Gravesend, Kent (road named on PCN is incorrect as was actually in a nearby road)
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS

 

Letter redacted2.pdf PCN redacted2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

dx100uk - i called the management co but they just say they cant get involved, UKCPM make the decisions about what is a parking violation and i have to deal with them

Link to post
Share on other sites

well you need to COMPLAIN to the man co.

 

they are NOT FINES 

and 

They are NOT PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES.

 

they are unenforceable speculative invoices.

 

for a management company those are VERY VERY poor mistakes to make in a formal letter. and they need to be legally corrected and a new notice issued to all residents.!!

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you put the photos back please just obscure reg number.

and where is the windscreen ticket please?

 

that NTK is is too early, should be 29-56 days for a non ANPR capture, you is NOT one. but operator pictures and a windscreen PCN must be issues 

 

so no windscreen PCN

NTK served too ealy.

permitted residential parking.

 

you lose UKCPM

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to UKCPM vanishing windscreen PCN - Private estate road in Gravesend, Kent - at odds with management letter saying o to park..

You have blanked out the time on the PCN. Were there two times quoted or just one. In addition in the photos of the car were there time stamps on them and if there were, could you please advise us what those times were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dx100uk - many thanks...

-Photos attached pretty much the same quality as they are on the PCN.

One photo has the signage but its too poor quality in the PCN to read.

 

-No windscreen ticket. Warden simply goes around with his/her mobile phone camera. 

 

-Location street name on the PCN is incorrect (its redacted but its not the road the car was parked in)

 

-PCN is dated 1 day after capture and received by me 3 days after capture. Is this what you refer to as NTK?  

 

-Can you pls advise what part of the legislation says they have to have a windscreen PCN or ANPR.

Seems quite common that these companies do it by stealth. 

 

- I uploaded signage too in case its useful

 

 

Pics.pdf Signage.pdf

 

@lookinforinfo 

- the 'incident time'  is mentioned twice - both the same time - once in the box in the top right and once in the text.

 

Yes i redacted it as the date/time/area combined collectively identify the PCN. Not sure why the exact time matters? - suffice to say the warden got up before breakfast. 

 

The photos do have date/times in the top left - tbh they are too small, dark, blurry in the PCN to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

warden photos which means its not an ANPR capture

so the NTK is before 29-56 days

 

all as i said above.

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dx100uk. Thanks. I am just  trying to find in POFA2012 where it says that a warden must issue a windscreen ticket. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

type in vanishing windscreen ticket in our enhanced google search box.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuliawati the reason I asked for the timesis that PoFA requires the period of parking to be stated. If just one time is recorded you can put them to strict proof that you didn't stay longer than 10 minutes. They have to do that or they should fail PoFA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming that you own a flat or house, leasehold, on this estate and your lease entitles you to park as long as you park in accordance with the rules decided by the management company, and the management company are authorised to act for the lessor. That might need to checked out at some point but it's what the management company seems to be saying in their 2019 letter when they refer to ".. per the covenants of the Estate...". Is that correct?

 

The management company (on behalf of the lessor) commonly has the power in the lease covenants to impose parking rules (again, needs checking) in which case I would argue that their letter 4 November 2019 is a formal notification to residents of a change of the parking rules. If UKPCM's signage is different to what the Estate parking rules are that's UKPCM's problem. They have no authority to enforce anything other than the management company's rules as notified to residents. 

 

You can ignore the waffle in the letter about 'tickets will be issued at the parking warden's discretion'. That discretion is very limited and does not entitle the warden to invent new offences that are contrary to the management company's rules.

 

So in your opinon (you know the estate road layout, we don't) were you parked in compliance with the November 2019 letter, eg not blocking access?

 

I would write to managing agent asking them to intervene as UKPCM have issued you with a PCN in breach of the November 2019 letter. The management company can say 'nothing to do with us' as much as they like but ultimately they can't wash their hands of it. UKPCM are acting on behalf of the management comapny and the management comapny are accoutable for what UKPCM do. And the rules are decided by the management comapny not UKPCM.

 

As a matter of interest do you have a marked parking bay that's reserved for you? Were you parked in it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The managing agent's letter, as well as riddled with examples of ignorance of the law as pointed out by dx in post 6, is ridiculously vague and fence sitting.  "Parking restrictions are to be relaxed slightly" - so what is allowed now then?  "Tickets will be issued at the parking warden's discretion" - what for?  'Cos they don't like the colour of your car?

 

You need to write to the agent - not phone - and fight back.  How about something like -

 

"Dear xxxxx,

 

I refer to your letter to residents of 4 November 2019 and our phone conversation of xxxxx.

 

Your letter is full of legal inaccuracies.  The letters that UK Car Park Management Limited send out are not fines or penalty charge notices, they are invoices issued by a private company.

 

It is not good enough for you to try to wash your hands of the activities of this company.  You invited them to infest the estate, and you are legally responsible for their behaviour.  Your letter makes it quite clear that you instruct them.

 

I absolutely refuse to pay their PCN xxxxx.  My actions inconvenienced no-one.  UKCPM are well known for starting court action against motorists, which they inevitably lose.  Should a county court claim be issued against me, I will immediately add Chamonix Estates Limited as a Third Party under Practise Direction 19a.

 

This unpleasantness could be easily avoided if you simply faced up to your legal responsibilities and demanded that UKCPM cancel the invoice".

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's regarding the managing agent.  Regarding the fleecers, ignore their tripe, and for goodness' sake don't appeal which would do far more harm than good.  dx has listed in posts 7 & 10 why their claim is pants and would be laughed out of court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

This unpleasantness could be easily avoided if you simply faced up to your legal responsibilities and demanded that UKCPM cancel the invoice".

and issue the CORRECT guidance to all residents you wrote too dated xxxxxx stating these are FINES and PENALTY CHAGE NOTICES. they are NOT. 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All - thanks for your detailed responses. Let me respond below.

 

It is a typical new build estate with freehold properties where the estate roads and common spaces are managed by an estate management company instead of the council. We have to pay them an annual fee for park keeping, road cleaning etc. In the covenants the 'rent charge' holder (currently the builder) can appoint a management company to manage the estate including parking regulations but the precise rules are not in the covenants.

 

The estate has marked bays and some folk have driveways but nowhere near enough space hence people park on road too, which led to the letter in 2019 as many complained. This is because people's visitors had literally nowhere to park if they followed CPM's signage - even on Xmas Day lol.  I was parked opposite my own driveway, not in a marked bay but not 'blocking' the driveway - i can easily in get in and out with my large SUV even with my other car parked opposite and HGV delivery vehicles and refuse trucks regularly go past unimpeded - so i believed i was parked in accordance with the estate mgt co. letter and I have been leaving it there 24x7 for more than 1 year.

 

I will write to the estate management co. as advised but perhaps with a little more diplomatic language :)

 

In respect of appealing to CPM and IAS, i see your comments and i realize the possibility of being successful is tiny. However, wouldn't a court later look favorably if i can show that i have tried all avenues to resolve the matter and that not responding is looked at unfavorably? And why is it a disadvantage especially if i dont give away all of my defence points?

 

I also read your comments on POFA2012 in respect of times on the PCN and early issuance of NTK and that windscreen PCN is required (unless ANPR). I will look further at the legislation to see if i can find the supporting language. 

 

Thanks again and i will add more as things develop.   

 

One general question - if the keeper names a driver in response to the NTK and the named 'driver' then denies back to the parking company that he/she is the driver, then the parking company cannot prove he/she is actually the driver so what would happen next?

 

I want to edit a post above as i was not the actual driver on this occasion, so when i say that 'i' was parked it means the car registered to me was parked, but not by me. But i dont see an edit button?

Link to post
Share on other sites

do not appeal, makes no odds in court IF IF IF it ever went there, whatsoever.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the clear info. about how the estate and parking is organised.

 

3 hours ago, Yuliawati said:

I will write to the estate management co. as advised but perhaps with a little more diplomatic language :)

Considering most letters drafted here are a load of abuse directed at the private parking companies, I thought the language was very restrained!  There's not an insult in there 🤣  More seriously, all the legal points in the letter are correct and I think it's good to go.  The agency "should" act and get the ticket withdrawn, but on the other hand they might well not have a clue about the law and refuse to cooperate, even if that would be worse for both you and them.  Still, it's only a stamp and nothing ventured ...

 

3 hours ago, Yuliawati said:

In respect of appealing to CPM and IAS, i see your comments and i realize the possibility of being successful is tiny. However, wouldn't a court later look favorably if i can show that i have tried all avenues to resolve the matter and that not responding is looked at unfavorably? And why is it a disadvantage especially if i dont give away all of my defence points?

Do you know the history of the industry?  Once upon a time there was only one trade association, the BPA, with a half-decent appeals body POPLA, which often found in favour of the motorist.  This situation was unbearable for the more crooked of the PPCs like UKCPM who trotted off to a new rival association where the IPC association, its appeals body the IAS, and the firm of solicitors who most usually take on these cases ... are all run by the same people!  No conflict of interest there!  The IAS twist everything to always find in favour of the PPC.  The best analogy I can think of is the Mafia.  The Mafia no doubt have their own internal logic about oaths, what amount of protection money it is reasonable to demand, what you can to someone who cooperates with the police - none of which has any connection to the law of the country.  That's how the IAS operate.  Motorists who appeal just encourage the PPC by showing respect for their crooked "procedures", and are at risk of throwing their legal protection under the POFA away by outing themselves as the driver.

 

If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page (starting from the most recent cases), concentrating on cases that went to court, you'll see that in their Witness Statements the fleecers do indeed often say the motorist "should" have appealed.  I can't remember one case where the judge was the slightest bit interested in that argument.

 

3 hours ago, Yuliawati said:

I also read your comments on POFA2012 in respect of times on the PCN and early issuance of NTK and that windscreen PCN is required (unless ANPR). I will look further at the legislation to see if i can find the supporting language.

It'll be somewhere in the POFA, Schedule 4.

Edited by FTMDave

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yuliawati said:

One general question - if the keeper names a driver in response to the NTK and the named 'driver' then denies back to the parking company that he/she is the driver, then the parking company cannot prove he/she is actually the driver so what would happen next?

I can't remember a case like this, but I would imagine the fleecers would pursue the keeper once again.  The closest we've had is when a keeper has, totally honestly, identified the driver as someone who lives in the EU, which the fleecers have ignored and gone after the keeper (even though there is no legal basis to do so).

 

3 hours ago, Yuliawati said:

I want to edit a post above as i was not the actual driver on this occasion, so when i say that 'i' was parked it means the car registered to me was parked, but not by me. But i dont see an edit button?

If you tell the Site Team what you want doing, we can help.  However, you're not using your real name, all the documents are redacted, so I don't see the problem.  But up to you.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

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...