I think the term you are seeking is 'force majeure:- unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.

Andyorch, if you read the OP's original post you will see that the daughter is no longer living with them and due to an abusive relationship with her partner, is prevented from contact with the OP.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hazlebarrow+Rd,+Jordanthorpe,+Sheffield/@53.3249661,-1.4618968,192a,35y,180h/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4879830fcbc4e607:0xa8514d877d9f3e37!8m2!3d53.3252332!4d-1.4624469 Bank fodder, I don't know from where your image is, but the link that I have produced above is the location of the collision, opposite no 41 Hazlebarrow Road, just before the place where there are three white lines across the grass. You will see that there is minimal bend in the road although there is more bend earlier near the junction with Ormond Way, so emphasising this is steering the OP in the wrong direction. The OP did mention in an early post the speed of 30 mph., but I suspect that this was merely an indication that she does not consider that she was speeding, rather than a precise speed.

Bankfodder, you have made a number of assumptions, not least of which is that the van was a 'wide' vehicle. However, the pictures that the OP has provided show that it is a Ford Transit Courier, which is no larger than a medium size saloon car. You question the OP's statement that the van was stationary but other statements that the vehicle moved out into her path. It is clear from her previous posts that as she approached the line of parked vehicles on her left, the van pulled out into her path and crossed into the opposite lane, but then stopped at an angle in her path , at which point she attempted to swerve to her left to avoid it, clipping the offside front wing, The affect of braking on the slushy ice and the impact sent her into the rear of the vehicle that was parked behind the gap vacated by the van. There is little camber and not a lot of bend at that site, (Your use of the word crest is associated with an incline, better description is apex for a bend) I think you have probably confused your self which in turn will confuse the OP

Can you identify what you call 'bubble' tyres? a photograph would help, together with the make and model of vehicle. I do not see how the rims can be fully protected by the tyre, which being pneumatic will have a degree of compliance the result being that at certain angles there is still a risk of rim damage.

I am not sure how you consider that the warranty was mis-sold to you, as you have admitted that you have previously consistently damaged the alloys on your car and this would have influenced the salesman to suggest that it would be a wise choice. If you did damage a wheel, irrespective of the 'bubble' tyres, whatever they are, this is still a possibility and only then could you test the validity of the warranty. You have taken 18 months since the purchase before asking the question, buyer's remorse would not wash in court.

Anyone wishing to view the location, it is Hazlebarrow ROAD, Jordanthorpe, Sheffield, not Hazlebarrow Crescent as the OP originally stated. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hazlebarrow+Rd,+Jordanthorpe,+Sheffield/@53.3250213,-1.4622265,58m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4879830fcbc4e607:0xa8514d877d9f3e37!8m2!3d53.3252332!4d-1.4624469 The OP has inverted the direction, ie they were travelling Southerly, rather than towards the North as Google Maps are orientated. Streetview would seem to indicate that there is little incline or camber.

I am sure that Man in the Middle will respond shortly, but in the meantime, the statutory declaration that you made at the solicitors merely informs the court that as you did not receive the S172 papers and summons to court, you did not have the opportunity to defend yourself. The hearing next week is to determine whether the clock should be turned back (conviction set aside) and how to proceed with the offence/offences, in light of your statutory declaration.

I find many inconsistencies in the posts from Louiseannmarie, not least her reference to her 'badge number'. Since when have the British Police held badges? They are issued with a warrant and use collar numbers for identification. Possibly has watched too many American movies! 'Her' spelling and grammar are less than I would expect of a Police Officer and her threat to report the site to the West Midlands Police, whilst claiming to work for them does not ring true. Suspect that 'she' is a troll.

It is possible that in the past, you have been in touch with a sister paper within the Newsquest Network which, similar to Johnson Press, cross subscribe.

Where did you get the idea that Magistrates could be involved? The court any of their threats refer to is a County Court (civil matters - not criminal) . The point is that if you refer to Magistrates in any correspondence, the fleecers will rub their hands together because you will show yourself as naive/ignorant of the subject and likely to fall down in your defence etc.

If you expect Action from Action Fraud, I am sorry to tell you that they have no such remit. They are simply a department of the City of London Police who collate reports of suspected fraud from around the country for analysis and policy formulation.

You need to inform them that the email address is NOT to be used for any communication relating to the claim. Block their email address so that it bounces back. If they have an email address it is a known tactic to send papers at 2359 on the day of final disclosure so that you do not have time to review/absorb the information in time to rebut.

Belt and braces, mail Excel with your new address also, with free proof of posting at the Post Office, so that they can't send any other communication that could affect your case to the previous address .

Unfortunately for you, this is not a continuous offence. Each time you enter the prohibition lane you commit the transgression. I suggest the action recommended by Man in the middle, ie a grovelling letter

Just to clarify for you, the claim has come from Northampton Bulk Claim Centre, based in St Katherine's House, Northampton, being an administrative office only, not an actual court as you might think of them with benches and chairs. As dx has mentioned, once you have submitted your brief defence, I repeat, Brief defence, that they send a direction questionnaire. Having filled it in they allocate the claim to the Small Claims track and also automatically send it to your local court; unless in the directions you have nominated a different court, for reasons of convenience to you, eg near to your place of work if away from home, or for better facilities - disabilities etc. During the pandemic, many hearings are by conference telephone calls it is later in the process if it gets that far, that you give chapter and verse of why the claim is defective in what is known as a Witness Statement, which is why you only submit a Brief defence at this stage - less is more in this context. This forum will help you with this, but bear in mind that it is a self-help forum so you are expected to read other threads to familiarise yourself with the process. .

dx I think that you mean, 'its not a fine and it most certainly does Not need to be blindly paid'

You really are over thinking things, probably because of your previous experience! You need to preserve your position viz a viz your rights to reject, by sending a formal letter of rejection to the supplier within 30 days of purchase. You do not have to physically return the vehicle in the 30 days, but you do need to stop using it, otherwise the rejection is negated. If you do not wish to reject, but are prepared to have a repair effected, the 30 days only comes in for NOTIFYING the supplier of the fault, which you have already done. If the repair is not successful, or indeed the supplier refuses to effect the repair (whether through any warranty insurance or not), you can then send the letter of rejection notwithstanding the expiry of the 30 days. Banfodder has already taken you through this in post#2 :- You can stop the clock on the 30 days by asserting your short-term right to reject straightaway. Send them a letter and an email confirming that you are asserting your right to reject the vehicle under the consumer rights act because it has developed a defect within the first 30 days. Tell them that under the consumer rights act, you are entitled to an immediate refund. Send them this letter even if you don't want to return the car – but at least you reserve your position.

I rest my case.

Ah, the mystery of the disappearing ticket! This is one pantomime that has not been affected by Covid 19 restrictions. It is a well known product of VCS and runs hand in glove with an operator type parking enforcement. As such they have sent the NTK too early to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. The NTK should be received by the keeper NOT BEFORE 29 days of the so called infringement, nor after 56 days. This is to allow a DRIVER to pay the charge before further action, but not so long after that the matter could be forgotten. They have treated it as an ANPR capture, which both from the angle of the photographs in your download and the illusive windscreen ticket it is not. Whatever you do, make no contact with VCS or any of their lackeys, as in so doing you could unwittingly identify yourself as the driver which could take away some of the protections you have under POFA. If the site is not too far from you, it would be worth re-visiting to both obtain photographs of ALL signs on site, particularly any at the entrance as you leave the highway and enter the private land. Also, visit the dealership and express possible interest in a vehicle, mentioning that you visited them a week ago. Ask if they have CCTV covering the car park as your vehicle was interfered with whilst it was parked (this is not a lie because VCS claim that their operative attached a ticket to the windscreen) If they do have cameras that cover the area, give them the exact time that you were there and ask if they could check for you. They may be reluctant to let you see the footage leading up to it due to GDPR, but if they find your vehicle, they may be willing to give you a copy of that section, which may show the ticket being removed by the operator after being photographed. You have nothing to lose by this request. Fill in the questionnaire posted by dx above so that advice from others can be tailored to your circumstance. Sorry, I was composing my post as you were submitting your answers to dx.

I can understand your frustrations at having to wait so long for a resolution of your problem, but I also have to say that I think you have done pretty well out of it. Whilst I am sure that you may be entitled to repayment of some consequential losses/costs, this would be offset against you now having a new or refurbished engine. Normally you cannot expect such betterment without payment. This is what the earlier request of £3.5 K was about and it is pretty amazing that this has been waived.. You have not told us what age of Subaru it was, or the price that you paid for it. I would imagine that the dealer now wants to be shot of the deal! I would be wary of having them conduct an MOT as it may be a way for them to recoup some money with repairs that render the vehicle undriveable ie requiring towing to another repairer if you declined their quotation for any repairs. You are entitled to drive the vehicle to a PRE ARRANGED MoT at your chosen station (there is no requirement for it to be close to the beginning of the journey, but it must be straight there, no deviating for shopping etc) There are many threads on this Forum of difficulties experienced by buyers who have travelled many miles for a second hand vehicle and the logistics that ensue. Maybe time to suck up and move on?

As I read the signs, payment can also be made by Credit or Debit card when a ticket could be issued for display.

TROLL?

A couple of points, you appear to have typed one of the dates incorrectly... Date of issue – 06 Nov 2020 ....... Date for AOS - 07 Nov 2020. Date to submit Defence - 21 Nov 2020 The date for acknowledgement is usually 14 days after date of issue and defence 28 days after issue (if acknowledged in time.). Please confirm which is correct.4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. This is simply an assertion that you failed to comply with a condition on their signage which they claim created a contract that you breached. Nothing at all to do with your contacting them. It is good that you have NOT contacted them, as often a defendant unwittingly loses protection by revealing themselves as the driver.

Under no circumstance should you play BWL's game by filling in THEIR form. Instead send a letter such as the one by ericsbrother that DX suggested which I show below. Dear BWL, I hope you don't mind me calling you this as you don't seem to be able to spell your actual name although Sean isn't that hard to write. Any debt to your client is denied, they clearly have forgotten about their ATA enforced grace period and also don't seem to comprehend that when you have bought a ticket there isn't a breach of not having one to consider. You might also like to know their paperwork is laughable and loses them their right to claim from the outset. Still, any company desperate enough to hire the parking worlds second worst solicitors surely lack any sense of reality but they can be sure that any claim will be robustly defended, a full costs recovery order sought for their unreasonable conduct and possibly a claim made against them for breach of the GDPR for accessing and processing my personal data when they had no reason to do so as per VCs v Phillip, Liverpool CC 2016. I look forward to a deafening silence from you and them from now on. Do not modify it to be less abrasive as this is the only way to indicate that you know that they are charlatans and you are not/ won't be scared into paying their demands. As they do not sign their missives properly, do not sign your letter, just print your name. (They are not beyond scanning and appending a signature to other documents.)