Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Is PCN valid


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6073 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

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Every One

 

PE2 And PE3 sent Yesterday to Northampton Now have to wait and hope. In the meantime will do some more research.

 

Still a little confused as to the (as ammended) at the end of road traffic Act 1991 and where I can find information on this

 

Help would be very appreciated.

 

 

Many Thanks bmwman

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi green and mean

 

The front contains most of the the statutory information

 

ie

 

PCN No

Notice date

VRM

Make

Location

Parking attendent No

Signature

Details Of contravention

and

Details of what to pay and When by

 

Two important part are on the back

 

Look at PCN posted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi green and mean

 

The front contains most of the the statutory information

 

ie

 

PCN No

Notice date

VRM

Make

Location

Parking attendent No

Signature

Details Of contravention

and

Details of what to pay and When by

 

Two important part are on the back

 

Look at PCN posted

 

I was just being awkward and pointing out that unless labelled as front/back how could you say which items were on the back and which were on the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi green and mean

 

There is a vilid reason I ask this question

 

The road traffic act 1991 states the following:

 

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

 

this is missing from the front of the PCN ar can it be on the back

 

bmwman

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone

 

Can anyone tell me if the back of a PCN is actually part of the PCN

 

Many Thanks

 

Hi, I have an appeal pending with a London Authority part of which is based on exactly this point.

 

The adjudicators have ruled that the tear-off slip is not part of the PCN> I can find no authority on the reverse although the judicial review in the Barnet case does give me hope in part.

 

The formatting of "my" PCN does, I think, give me a good case.

 

Will let you know.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bernie the bolt

 

Just been read through barnet court paper on the net. Ther is a very interesting defence here regurding the "you are required to pay £ witn in 28 days and so on" It states that in one case that the calculation date starts the day after the date of issue thus allowing 29 days and 15 days accrodingly this dejects form section 66 3c,d,e thus rendering the PCN as void. But this has to be contested.

 

Have you read the Als Caf'e V Wandsworth case if PM me and will send copy

 

bmwman

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest xipetotec46

1. No As Amended wording

2. No date given to pay (i.e. From date of issue)

3. Instructions to pay. the wording is on the tear off slip (not part of PCN)

Probably more wrong stuff on the back also.

4. You have a valid blue badge

5. You have a Stat Dec

6. You cannot lose

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Thank you for your replies.

 

Stiill waiting to here from the TEC hoping they will allow Stat Decs.

 

Going to fight it on the grounds that that have allowed an extra day for payment in contravention of the road traffic act 1991 (see Als caf'e and resturant - V - Wandsworth Council) also that the part about notice to owner does not appear on the PCN or who to pay. They how ever do appear on the back there for is the back part of the PCN

 

Will keep you posted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Just to keep you up to date. Phone TEC as had not heard anything:-

 

Sat Decs Posted Recorded Delivery Friday 07/09/2007 Received TEC 10/09/2007 Phone today 14/09/2007

Told had not received them so not processed gave them tracking number

told sorry appear to have gone astray can you fax copies.

Faxed copies to them now processed and return to Brighton

Brighton have until 11/10/2007 to reply.

 

Will keep you Posted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Thank you for your replies.

 

Stiill waiting to here from the TEC hoping they will allow Stat Decs.

 

Going to fight it on the grounds that that have allowed an extra day for payment in contravention of the road traffic act 1991 (see Als caf'e and resturant - V - Wandsworth Council) also that the part about notice to owner does not appear on the PCN or who to pay. They how ever do appear on the back there for is the back part of the PCN

 

Will keep you posted

 

 

This post may be of some assistance to you.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bernie the bolt

 

Thank you for the link this will come in very handy I will have to make a few small ammendments to suit my case.

 

On Stat Dec Put NTO not received I take it that Brighton will either send new NTO or challange. I beleave NTOs are sent in standard post therefore thay have to prove service.

 

Your comment very much appreciated

 

bmwman

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll not answer the time issue (ie the length of time it has taken to get the NTO to you after the alleged contravention) because I have not researched that sufficiently.

 

But, I would contest the NTO because it does not give to the option to state that "you were never the owner of the vehicle". It has also changed the ground that "the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner" to "the vehicle had been taken without my consent" which is not the same thing.

 

On a separate post on this thread I linked to the argument.

 

My view is that you have a legitimate argument that both the PCN and the NTO are invalid and potentially that the NTO has been served out of time.

 

You have absoloutely nothing to lose by following both stages of the appeal process. The penalty cannot increase and all it costs is time and a stamp.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bernie the Bolt

 

Thankyou for your reply I missed this one.

 

Should I fill In NtO along the following lines

 

Tick Other Representations

 

PCN is invalid does not meet Staturory Guide lines as layed down in the Road Traffic Act 1991 as Amended

 

NtO Does not meet Statutory Guide line as layed down in the Road Traffic Act 1991 Schedule 6 as amended

 

Your help would be gratefully received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick that the penalty exceeded the relevant amount. The reason being that if either or both of the pcn and the nto are invalid the applicable penalty is £0.

 

Ignore "other representations" that is not a statutory basis for appeal.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Should I also supply info as to why these are invalid or keep it until notice of rejection then hit them with parking adjudicator with all guns blazing

 

Many Thanks

 

Different schools of thought:

 

I personally think you should be reasonably specific. I think that you need to give the authority directions and clues as to where you are coming from.

 

Others would say just say it does not comply.

 

Rather depends, perhaps, on whether you care on whether you win at LA appeal stage or independent adjudicator.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BMWMAN, you've completely lost me here.

 

You have a letter dated 31/08/2007 telling you that the matter has been passed to Bailiffs and a Notice to Owner referring to the same PCN (BH30070655) date 2 days ago (17/9/2007.

 

Are you saying that they have issued a Charge Certificate and instructed bailiffs before issuing the NtO? Or have they re-issued the NtO following a stat. dec.

 

I also object to his attitude that sites like this (and Pepipoo) don't know what they are talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...