Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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
      • 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

motor scooter front fork damage pothole


ste2562
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 794 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

I don't understand because on a brief reading they seem to be saying that the defect was repaired in June and yet your accident apparently was in July.
There is a serious discrepancy in the dates.

You are much more familiar with the story, maybe you could go through and reconcile the dates please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i think i should clear up any confusion over dates relating to this thread.

 

On the 16/6/21 my motor scooter was damaged from a pothole in the road.

 

My scooter was returned to me on the 6/7/21 from the bike repairers. I received my invoice for the repairs off the bike repairers on 8/7/21 and was advised to claim for the damage done to my scooter from the council.

 

On the 9/7/21 i emailed the councils highway department with information of the pothole, the location and the date of the incident. After no correspondence for 4 weeks i emailed the council again on 9/8/21 and supplied photos of the pothole,  the location and the date of the incident.

 

On the 10/8/21 i received an email from the councils insurance team saying that they were now dealing with the claim.

 

On the 12/8/21 i received an email from the claims handlers GB.UK saying that they were now dealing with the claim.

 

On the 19/11/21 i received an email from GB.UK claim handlers denying all responsibilities and could offer no compensation.

 

On the 22/11/21 i sent a Sars request to GB.UK claim handlers.

 

On the 6/12/21 i received the information from the Sars request off GB.UK claim handlers.

 

On the 22/11/21 i put in a FOI request to the council requesting information about the name of the contracting company who went bust and the company who did the repair and all corresponding dates etc.

 

On the 7/1/22 i received an email from the council regarding the FOI request. They state that the initial defect was identified for repair on the 27/4/21 and issued to king construction on a 28 day repair. King construction goes into administration on or about 1/6/21. Works order re-issued to Dowhigh ltd on 20/6/21 and the defect repaired on the 29/6/21. Then it goes on to say details of alleged damage and request for damage claims was received on the 9/7/21 which was followed up by insurance investigation and subsequently denied.

 

Im struggling to upload some documents as my macbook is broke and finding it difficult to access my icloud where my email correspondence and attachments are held in the cloud.

 

I will try an upload a readable version as soon as possible. 

 

I know the council have told porkie pies on this as i have the photo evidence in emails submitted. 

Unbelievable 

 

I would just like to add that the photo evidence of the pothole was taken on the 8/7/21 and so shows that work's had not been completed as i took these after being advised by the bike repair shop to claim the damages for my scooter.

Theses photo's were taken on my phone and details on my phone proves the time and date the photos were taken 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so annoyed by the blatant lies of sefton council.

Do i reply to the email highlighting the fact that i have photo evidence which contradicts them saying the pothole was repaired on the 29/6/21.

 

I have several photos of the pothole still not repaired on the 8/7/21 on my phone dated and what time they were took at.

 

I have also gone through my emails to the council when i was in contact with the insurance department telling them i could send them other photos i had took of the pothole if they required them and pointed out on that email dated the 9/8/21 that the pothole had now been repaired.

 

On the 10/8/21 i had a reply to the email i sent to the insurance department regarding the extra photos i took and was told that the photos i sent were fine and that they had now set my claim up and it had been sent to Gallagher Bassett the claim handlers.

 

I await any advice you can give me and appreciate all advice to date

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the council have said in their reply the my FOI request that they had filled the pothole on the 29/6/21 after my incident which took place on the 16/6/21.

But i took the photo's  9 days after the 29/6/21 showing that was NOT the case as the pothole was still there on the 8/7/21 and weeks later.

 

Do i get in contact with the council asking them to explain this discrepancy and ask why they are not responsjble for the damage.

Do i contact a solicitor,  which i would prefer not to do due to costs.

Do i contact a local councillor to highlight my case. 

Do i take it on the chin and walk away and accept local goverment are as corrupt as the rest of the vipers in parliament .

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't find a solicitor to deal with this and even if you did it would be half-hearted and prolonged and cost you a lot of money.

By all means try contacting the councillor although unless there is an election coming up where they need to start encouraging some goodwill, they will be unlikely to do very much.

This could be the time to begin a claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, I have had a good result on this issue regarding the damage to my motor scooter. 

 

After appealing the claims handlers decision and the discrepancies in the freedom of information request from the council the council are going to settle my claim. 

 

The claims handlers asked me to provide the invoice again as they said they couldn't locate it.

The cloud hel

 

Thankyou for all the guidance and advice you have given me with this.

It took several months and a snotty letter .

Thankyou

I will be giving a donation

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update and thanks in advance for the donation .

Well done.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, the people on this site have helped so much

You have helped both myself and my daughter on a couple of occasions 

You have inspired us both to take on these institutions and companies with tenacity 

Brilliant 

Thankyou

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...