Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

PCN Date served beyond 28 days..tottenham court rd bus lane contravention.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 506 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

Hello,

I'd very much appreciate your help with this.

I had a courtesy car provided recorded on a camera in Camden on 20/12/22.

 

The courtesy claims management company have forwarded me the PCN, but the dates indicated seem to be beyond the 28 day window. Can I contest on this basis?

 

Secondly, whilst Camden have regularly reset road layouts and directions of travel in central London, I saw no sign indicating I couldn't travel down this road as I have done on many occasions.

 

If the PCN is not valid, are there further grounds for me to challenge.

 

I haven't viewed the footage or checked signage in the area since receiving this.

 

Thank you

 

PCN 1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PCN Date served beyond 28 days..tottenham court rd bus lane contravention.

i dont think that is what should happen .

the keeper the hire co. should inform the council you were the driver

then you get one in your name

 

it even says so on the pcn!!

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

To the hire company who wrote the following.

 

I haven’t received anything yet but would clearly like to have a reason not to pay. What are my options please?

 

I write in reference to the attached Penalty Charge Notice received on your behalf whilst you were in possession of our hire vehicle.

 

We have now sent representations to the authority to transfer liability from (car hire company). The authority will contact you in due course to arrange payments in respect of the fine.

 

You will note that signed the Car Hire Agreement, agreeing to pay for any Administration Fees received during your hire period. I have enclosed an invoice detailing these charges have attached all supporting documentation and request that you arrange to make payment within 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Browne said:

No. Where a hire car co. transfers liability to the hirer the council are allowed to serve a second pcn to the hirer beyond 28days, but there is no excuse for the council not to have served the original pcn to the hire co. within 28 days

 

Sorry if I've missed it, but do we know that the original PCN was the one served on the hire company?  Isn't it at least possible that the RK is a finance company and not the hire company?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original pcn was served on the claims management company that provided me with the car. 
irrespective is it not date of contravention and date of notice that are at issue within the stipulated timeframe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing overrides a pcn being out of time as MB says.

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

11 hours ago, 1manteam said:

The original pcn was served on the claims management company that provided me with the car. 
 

What manxman is saying is that the claims management company might lease the vehicle and that the RK is a finance company and they would have received the original pcn.

 

They would have transferred liability to the claims management company, who in turn have transferred liability to you.  That would explain the extended timescale and the council would legitimatey be able to serve beyond the 28 day deadline.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1manteam said:

Thanks. So I’m back to square 1. Next steps would be to review the footage and check for signs I may have missed?

 

Yes.

 

But I think you should also check who the registered keeper is and ask them to confirm when they received the original (ie first) PCN. 

 

Why don't you contact the car hire firm who alerted you to the PCN and ask them if they are the registered keeper?  If they are, fine and it might be out of time, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are not the RK and that the PCN they received and copied to you was not the first one.  [Edit:  If they just blithely say that they are the RK, politely ask them if they are sure they are, and ask them to confirm it is their name shown as RK on the car's V5C]

 

As others have said, it isn't technically your ticket to deal with until you receive one addressed to you.  You could then find out what the history of the ticket was and when it was first issued.

 

AIUI councils are meant to follow a prescribed procedure when re-issuing pcns in respect of hire cars, and they sometimes get this wrong, thus invalidating the ticket.  So come back to this thread when you get your own ticket.

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement is factually correct .

 

I'd also doubt a financial institution funding hire/courtesy car to a company would be a registered keeper 

 

P'haps a quick call to the hire company to ensure they did receive a previous PCN in their name 

 

Then followed the guidelines by naming the driver to the issuer is in order simply to negate any recently introduced scepticism.

 

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

8 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

My statement is factually correct .

 

 

 

Sorry.  I read your post to be confirming to the OP that this PCN was out of date rather than just a comment about PCNs in general.

 

I think the OP would be best advised to check who the RK actually is and when they received their PCN before assuming it's out of date on the basis of what the hire company has sent him

 

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's what happens when you join any thread, you 'think' and 'assume' this or that,  no matter where you go, you always introduce speculation and additional confusion or doubt .

 

It took me many years to learn not to do that here. I had to learn the golden rule, if you don't know the answer...don't post!!

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

 I now have my own ticket, which arrived yesterday.

 

I have attached this one below along with a couple of the screenshots.

 

On Google Maps the street is still marked for permitted travel through this section.

I had no idea of the changes and have travelled down that section of road many times before.

 

I'm not sure the signage is that helpful and it was 9:03am when traffic is apparently prohibited from 9:00am.

Unsurprisingly this feels like just another attempt to stitch up motorists.

Can anyone help please?

 

To respond to the earlier question about the RK,

the claims management company (previous PCN) are not the RK so would have had the originally submitted PCN forwarded to them from the RK.

 

 

new pcn + pix.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I'd very much appreciate your help with this.

 

I had a courtesy car provided recorded on a camera in Camden on 20/12/22. The courtesy claims management company have forwarded me the PCN.

 

I now have my received my own ticket, which arrived yesterday.

 

On Google Maps the street is still marked for permitted travel through this section. I had no idea of the changes and have travelled down that section of road many times before.

 

I'm not sure the signage (indicated on screenshot) is that helpful and it was 9:03am when traffic is apparently prohibited from 9:00am. Unsurprisingly this feels like just another attempt to stitch up motorists.

Can anyone help please? I note the main signage is also beyond the junction, i.e. after the direction to turn, if that is of any consequence?

 

The claims management company (previous PCN) are not the RK so would have had the originally submitted PCN forwarded to them from the RK.

 

If the PCN is valid, are there further grounds for me to challenge?

 

Thank you

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...