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
      • 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

PCM vanishing windscreen PCN - Royale Leisure Park - W3 (London)


Recommended Posts

I have checked. No recording was triggered by the camera - I don't have loop recording, only proximity and vibration sensor triggered recording - abs and since he took photos from afar and did not physically touch my car - no recording was done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.  It was worth a try.

Their case is still pants and they have broken their own Code of Practice numerous times.

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

2 minutes ago, Hamz909 said:

I'll ignore their letters of demand but NEVER ignore a letter of claim.

Spot on!  You learn quickly.

Who cares if the case gets sent to debt collectors?  They have no powers.  All the effort you will have to put in will be to open envelopes - and then spend time laughing at their daft "threats".  No stress at all!

  • 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

There is no evidence that I was issued a PCN that was placed on the car and removed.

It seems that I was issued a £60 PCN on the 8th of March (the parking date) but it was never placed on my car, instead,  they allege that they posted the PCN on the 13th of March and deemed delivered on the 15th. I never got this 1st £60 PCN demand. I only know about all of this through the SAR.

I only received the second PCN demanding £100, which was deemed delivered on 16/04/2024 - that is 39 days after the parking incident. 

I did a little research and "Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations." as per London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement. 

The main issue is that I was not aware of the 1st £60 PCN as I didn't receive it - I'm not sure how this relates to the 28-day rule because that rule applies to the initial £60 PCN. PCM could say that "we sent him the letter by post and it was deemed delivered on the 15th of March" therefore the 28-day rule does not apply. 

As regards the safety of the parking attendant, that is clearly something he chose to feel and he made the decision that his safety was threatened - I didn't even see him or had any interaction with him. I'm nearly 50 and I definitely don't look aggressive 

I have also found this: 

D.2 Service of a PCN by post:
54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post:
1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances)
2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle
3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN
55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations.
This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement. 

The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away. 

I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this. 

From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."

From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices:

Approved Devices
4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1.

SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices

1.  The device must include a camera which is—

(a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure,

(b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it,

(c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and

(d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention.

2.  The device must include a recording system in which—

(a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring,

(b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second,

(c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and

(d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated.

3.  The device and visual counter must—

(a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and

(b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period.

4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number.

5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.

The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances" 

I was not a threat.

I was not present.

I did not drive away.

I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid. 

What are your thoughts?

I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR.

parking car .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

none of which apply to PRIVATE PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND.

dx

 

  • Like 1

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

Oh dear. 

So in my case,  Iiwas ssued a £60 PCN on the 8th of March (the parking date) but it was never placed on my car, instead,  they allege that they posted the PCN on the 13th of March and deemed delivered on the 15th.

I never received this 1st £60 PCN demand. I only know about all of this through the SAR.

I only received the second PCN demanding £100, which was deemed delivered on 16/04/2024 - that is 39 days after the parking incident. 

How does the 28 day rule apply to me then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period.

you ain't paying anyway.....

if this ever gets before a judge.

then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play.

until then

i go get on with your life.

you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme 

its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.

 

 

  • Like 1

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 will try again......................

Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos.  But as I said in the IPC letter, that is not the dispute.

The dispute is that CPM sent you the second PCN on the 28 th day of the issue date of the first PCN. It should not have been sent until the day AFTER the original PCN was issued. Therefore they broke the Act, they breached the IPC Code of Conduct and their agreement with the DVLA.

It is something that the IPC cannot ignore since to do so will bring the ICO down on them and the DVLA should ban CPM from getting data from them once they know if the ICO do nothing. The minimum I expect is that your PCN will be cancelled.

But it is up to you. I have given you the details, you have copies of both PCNs sent to you on the sar  with all  the relevant dates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos. 

where?

reflection of a sign on the bonnet but no PCN yellow env...

W3 SAR documents v2.pdf

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

That's not a ticket on the car. It's the reflection of the sign on the bonnet - my car is particularly shinny. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Even if that was not a PCN on your car, can you still swear that a PCN was not placed on your car ? NO

Even if they showed you a copy of the PCN they sent, can you still wear that they actually sent the first PCN to you? NO

Why are still quibbling  when the real argument is why they have broken the Act by telling you that you hadn't paid when in reality they shouldn't have sent that letter out probably until Monday which  would have been deemed received  on Wednesday?

If you are that bothered about it, just leave out the start about the windscreen ticket since it isn't why you are complaining.

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear lookinforinfo,

I'm sorry if I seem stupid, but what exactly am I telling them? -what code/ law / standard have they broken that I will use as an argument in letter? I don't understand the premise of your argument. 

I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me clearly and in simple terms so that I understand. 

Thank you 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamz909

I am sorry not to have replied already.

The last couple of days have been hectic so I have only completed about half of the explanation

. I hope that it will be finished later today though it may not be till Monday as I am baby sitting one of my grand daughter's this morning and watching another grand daughter in a play in the early evening.

And I may have to add something else after looking at the situation again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Today has been hectic so  have been unable to complete the whole thing. If you now understand it and want to go ahead with a complaint to the IPC, fine. If not then I won't need to finish it. But below is my response to your request  on post 64.

No you don't seem stupid, the Protection of Freedoms Act isn't easy to get one 's head around at first.

The part of the above Act referring to private parking is contained within Schedule 4 which you can find online under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Section 9 of SCH.4 relates to how the parking scrotes have to perform so that they can transfer their right to pursue the keeper from the driver when the PCN is still unpaid after a certain amount of time.

In your case the PCN was posted to you the keeper and arrived within 14 days from when they claimed a breach occurred. That means they complied with first part of the Act. The driver at that time was still responsible to pay the charge demanded on the PCN and PCM now have to wait for 28 days to elapse before they can write and advise the keeper that as the charge has not been paid, that they now have the right to pursue the keeper.

They claim they sent the first PCN on the 13th March, five days after the alleged breach and it arrived on Friday 15th March. So to comply with the Act they have to observe Section 8 subsection 2f  

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the first PCN was deemed to arrive on the 15th March and for 28 days to have elapsed is when the time is right for them to write and say you are now liable as keeper. they sent the next PCN on the 12th April which is too early as you could still have paid until midnight of the 12th.

the earliest their second PCN should have gone to you was  Saturday 13th April, more likely on Monday 15th April.

The IPC Code of Conduct states "Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses."

by issuing your demand a day early, they have broken the Act, the IPC Code of Conduct, the DVLA agreement  to abide by the law and the Code of Conduct not to mention a possible breach of your GDPR .

I asked the IPC  in the letter on an earlier to confirm that  CPMs Notice misrepresenting the law was a standard practice for all of PCMs Notices or just certain ones.

Their distribution  may depend on when they were issued and whether they were issued in certain localities or for certain breaches.

Whichever method used is a serious breach of the Law and could lead to PCM being black listed by the DVLA .

One would expect that after that even if the IPC did not cancel your ticket, PCM could not risk going to Court with you nor even pursuing you any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thank you for your message. 

I'm concerned that by complaining to the IPC, and escalating the situation, PCM would be even more inclined to cause problems for me and take action to the fullest extent just to make an example of me. 

I can still take the above action as a backup plan if PCM decides to go ahead.

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...