Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted.
    • 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

PCM Operator Ticket/Photos - Castor Lane London E14 0BY - while in my car


Recommended Posts

I was waiting for my other half in my car for about ten minutes, they took pictures of my car(by phone or camera) and said I need to pay £60 as they manage the road I was on, with my engine running  sitting waiting for my partner to come out of work and then I get this letter...

Any help appreciated

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

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

we need BOTHSIDES of the letter and the FULL PAGES please not part

we must be able to read ALL the words CLEARLY 

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

Just to say I have no physical ticket

It's camera(mobile) or normal camera

I'll answer those questions now

I looked through that list and nothing applies to me 

I have a letter

Not ticket

Just their pics of me on the road with my lights on waiting for 7 minutes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PCM Operator Ticket/Photos - Castor Lane London E14 0BY - while in my car

copy and paste the windscreen Q&A here and answer what you know.

post up the letter you have BOTHSIDES to ONE PDF please

thread title updated.

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

need side two and the Q&A doing please..

this is getting like pulling teeth...

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

It's because I don't know what to do

All new about internet I'm great as that's my job but I'm trying 

 

People are getting vexed with me because I can't get pdf of both photos, I'm on my mobile and it's hard... So I thank you all for your advice/help...

I'm just not going to pay because trying to get the info I need is as stressful as not paying...

When  I said the answers to the template I was told to fill out when none of it was  relevant to me...

Thank you 

For your assistance

Link to post
Share on other sites

well everyone else that comes here manages it.

just ignore everything inc powerless DCA's they are NOT BAILIFFS on ANY debt.

if you ever get a letter of claim

comeback here as you must reply in the correct manner NOT using their forms.

 

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

I take it that you were parked in castor lane e14?

Your defence could be that you weren't parked in Castor Lane, Paignton, TQ4 since the PCN has failed to specify the address you were stopped on.

There are at least four Coston Lanes in the UK so just to put Coston Lane without a post code fails to specify the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which governs private parking.

I cannot see/read the times on the photographs. The PCN has to specify the parking period which is particularly difficult for them to do as you were waiting in the car and engine running not actually parked. So two matters here

1] the Judge in Jopson v Homeguard gave this definition of parking

20 Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.”

The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture.

Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. [

[2] what are the times on the photographs? I would presume a few minutes but I will come back to that when you quote the times on the photos as there are non on the PCN wording which in itself may mean the PVN is not compliant.

The PCN does not comply with Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e] as it does not ask the keeper to pass the PCN to the driver. And fails to comply again on Schedule 4 s9 [2]f ] as it misses out these words in parentheses -" (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)"

In addition the PCN carries on to say that charges for recovery action will be added "IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEDULE FOUR". This is a barefaced lie. There is no mention of recovery action in the Act . Inded all that can be charged is the amount features on the signage, nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

4 Coston Lanes in the UK

its Castor Lane London E14 0BY though yes the PCN states no Postcode.

i also notice its castor Ln on all maps not Lane.

but theres only one... look on google earth right down the end is the exact spot but thats from 2022.

there is one timing on the PCN in its text of 21:54

 

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

Thanks for the timings Shadow.

The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for several reasons.

1]Under Schedule 4 section 9 [2][a] of the Act  the PCN must ]

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

They have failed to specify the land since there are at least two other castor roads in the UK at least and they have not mentioned the period of parking on the PCN. [I am  assuming that they did manage to get the make, model and colour of your car correct?  can be a dangerous assumption ].

2] under Schedule 4 S9 [2] [e] they have failed to state that the PCN should be handed to the driver

3] under Schedul4 s9[2][f]  they failed to include the wording in brackets  (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) .

4] They state "This is inclusive of recovery action and is in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Act." This is totally untrue and absolutely wrong. There is no mention of recovery action in the Act . Indeed the Act states that the amount to be paid is the amount on the signage -therefore no more than £100.

5] the times on the photos indicate the car was stationary for three minutes which is well within the Consideration period. The car was not parked anyway as the driver was waiting for their passenger with the engine running and the driver remained in the car. [See definition of  parking by Judge in Jopson  v Homeguard case]

There may be another failure as to the reason for the PCN -"parked within a restricted area". It is not a common regulation with the parking rogues but we  know how valid it is until we see the signs and  possibly the contract.

All in all it's a pretty useless PCN and means that the keeper is not responsible to pay the charge though the driver is still liable.

That seems a bit harsh when so many things are wrong with the PCN.

However that chances of them being able to prove who was driving will be difficult unless you appeal and inadvertently reveal who was driving. 

Many people are legally able to drive your car and Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

 

 

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...