Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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 
        • 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

PCN on council car park HELP!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6203 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,

 

Can someone please help me urgently. Last week I parked on our local run car park only to discover upon my return I had been issued with a penalty charge notice. £60 reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days. It said that I had parked outside the marked bays as the offence. Granted I had parked over the white line slightly as I did have with me my 6 month old child and my friend. We had to get all the baby stuff out of the car and the car park didn't have any allocated wider bays for parents and children spaces. When I spoke with the guard he said I'd have to appeal. There didnt seem to be many signs about warning about this which I find increasingly annoying. Anyway I need help urgently as I need to get a letter of appeal in asap but wanted to know if anyone could please help me. The ticket seems to be correct for vehicle reg, time date etc. Any help please?? thanks :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a starting point can you post a scan of the PCN or the EXACT wording printed on the ticket?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I haven't got access to a scanner but the ticket reads as follows:

 

Penalty Charge Notice:WI00082*****

date of issue: 26/04/07

date of contravention: 26/04/07

time of issue: 12:51

time first seen: 12:50

 

the vehicle with registration number S6 ***

Make: Audi Colour: Blue

 

was seen in Market multi storey car park

by parking attendant: 107

Signature/initials: (the person has initalled it)

 

who had reasonable cause to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred:

 

86 - parked beyond the bay markings

 

You are therefore required to pay a penalty charge of £60 within 28 days of the date of issue of this notice. A discount charge of £30 will be accepted in settlement if payment is received within 14 days from date of issue.

Payment instructions are printed on the reverse of this notice.

A photograph may have been taken on this parking contravention.

For payment instructions see overleaf.

 

(Payment slip attatched with the details of PCN, contravention code, vehicle reg and time and date on it. )

 

Any thoughts??

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

the car parked to my left was very close to my white line as I parked my car so I had gone over the right hand line slightly, it wasn't a end bay or anything like that. It wasn;t parked in the middle of both spaces though unlike the car parked opposite me, slap bang in the middle of 2 spaces and no ticket issued on that car!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest xipetotec46

The

"You are therefore required to pay a penalty charge of"
is non compliant as the act is aimed at the Registered keeeper/owner, and not the driver, I am going to NPAS on 29th of this month over this very issue, if you can stall the paying of the penalty charge by informing the council of the problems you had with the child and send in or take the written mitigating circumstances in on the last day, the council will have it for about 10 to 14 days and the time limit will be reset back to 14 days, I should have my decision from NPAS by then and if I win I will post new thread on here look out for it early June you can then cite the case.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest xipetotec46

wait till the last possible moment though, just draft something up they won't accept it anyway, they are automatons. no feelings, void of emotion. zombies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It said that I had parked outside the marked bays as the offence. Granted I had parked over the white line slightly as I did have with me my 6 month old child and my friend. We had to get all the baby stuff out of the car and the car park didn't have any allocated wider bays for parents and children spaces.

 

But surely once you had "unloaded" the car, your friend would/should have supervised your infant while you corrected your bad parking. Either that, or you should have "unloaded" before parking (like I do in my street with my family as the drive is not wide enough to do anything else - and is definitely not suitable as a "parent and children" space)

 

Whilst I agree that motorists should make use of every loophole available, being that they are seen as cash cows by both local and central government, in this case even if you are not legally bound to pay the fine, morally I see no defence.

On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Read anything I write with the above in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest xipetotec46

Whilst I agree that motorists should make use of every loophole available, being that they are seen as cash cows by both local and central government, in this case even if you are not legally bound to pay the fine, morally I see no defence.

 

Hi Esio Trot

I tend to agree with you on the point of that the councils are using decriminilised parking enforcement as a means to raise extra revenue, wordwizard is not using a loophole to get justice he is using the law, if councils want to ignore statutes of law and collect cash illegally because there are known illegalities with their DPE regime then it is up to everyone to stop them not just the ones who are affected by it, it is easy to say "there but for the grace of god go I" we are here to help the motorist get justice and your comments whilst sent with good intentions are unhelpful to wordwizard. we arent all possessed with hindsight... carry on wordwizard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

many thanks for your words of wizdom, I have drafted the letter to the Council with both my circumstances outlined and disgust at lack of parent and child spaces and further the issues you have raised about the legal requirements of the ticket. It isn't just me that this has happended to, reading our local paper this weekend and it seems 2 other people have had their concerns voiced in the local paper having wrote letters of compliant to the local paper! It seems the security guys at the car park will have had to get the ear bashings from disgruntled parkers rather than the "pen pushers" who have to sort these messes out!! I'll let you know how I get on, many thanks again i'm going to keep my eyes open in these forums!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...