I presume that's for month 01 as the cumulatives are the same as the monthly? I think the total number of days she's had off sick in the previous 12 months might be relevant? Do you know why there are separate deductions for both "Unpaid sick absence" AND "Unpaid absence"? (I retired many years ago and unfortunately I'm not as familiar with payslips as I used to be)

That's OK. I think it's perhaps a bit odd that they changed the signage after December 2020. Confusing(?) now if you knew what it said previously

Sorry but I'm no expert on parking matters and I don't know if the process in NI is the same as in England. I think that what @Michael Browne was saying in #10 is that if the registered keeper had submitted initial representations against the ticket, but never got a reply, then the RK could file a Statutory Declaration to reset the process. But if I've understood correctly, I don't think that avenue is open to the RK as the RK didn't make any initial representations because they never knew about the ticket until now. (Or at least I think that's what you are saying?) I'm afraid I don't have the expert knowledge to help you. In order to get the right people to give you the correct advice I think it would be helpful if you could give an itemised timeline in chronological order. Include details of what has happened; include dates and details of all correspondence received by the RK and who it was from; include details of all responses made by the RK. Include everything that you know has happened. What I don't quite understand is that it sounds like several notices to the RK must have gone astray for it to reach this stage. Good luck - I'm sure others will chip in

Sorry, but where are you seeing the RM van? AIUI traffic isn't prevented from accessing Federal Road on either side of the restriction on Federal Road just to the south of the junction with Perimeade Road, but motor vehicles can't go through the restriction 24/7

Although in December 2020 it was restricted to school arrival and leaving times... 50 Federal Rd - Google Maps

Could you possibly post up a google maps street view link so we can see the signage at the road entrance? Is that view up to date do you know? Once others have seen the site of the contravention, see what they advise. (In the circumstances of this case you could always ask* the council to exercise their disctretion not to enforce, but the liklihood is they want your money too much - especially Ealing.) *Obviously you'd need to gather as much evidence as you could to justify the urgent delivery of medicine to put forward as strong a case as possible

I may be mistaken but is it clear that @éire actually made representations at the appropriate time? I read it that the first they knew about this was the arrival of the Notice of Enforcement. I know that you asked them if they'd made representations, but I'm not certain that they answered "Yes" to that question. (I took their answer that "Owner responded to parking enforcement processing unit (NI) stating that a carer was driving and received this pcn..." to mean that they'd queried the Notice, not that they'd made any representations earlier in the process. I don't think they ever knew about the PCN the carer got.). But I may have misunderstood...

Are you enabled to send messages to individual posters? If you are you could try asking @honeybee13 if they could get Andy or somebody who understands the Civil Procedure Rules better than me to post some advice for you here. (I'd do it myself but I don't have that facility as I think the forum considers me a bit subversive... )

I understand your question but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of court procedure. I think the most knowledgeable poster on procedure is @Andyorch See if he picks this up

Just to add - a bit of a coincidence for a vehicle to cover 120,000 miles and it's the last 3700 miles that does all the damage, it being in perfect condition before that last 3700...

If you made a claim in any particular policy year and you pay your premiums monthly, then when the claim is paid out you will become contractually liable to pay the unpaid balance of the annual premium. You entered into a contractual arrangement for them to provide you with insurance cover in return for you paying them an annual premium. They've kept their side of the bargain by paying out on both your claims, now you need to keep your side of that bargain by paying the outstanding premium. Whether you think they've messed you about or not is neither here nor there. It's quite likely they won't sue you, but they are almost certainly legally entitled to do so and they would almost certainly win. I'm all for enforcing consumer rights but sometimes consumers need to be reminded they have responsibilities too. Especially if what they do has the potential effect of pushing up premiums for others.

OK. 1. On the instructions given to them (whoever instructed them) they don't appear to have been asked explicitly to answer the actual question you say the court wanted answering: 2. However, in conclusion (C3) they do say that "there is a possibility that the selling agent may have had some responsibility" for the engine failure, but they also qualify that by saying that you have made the engine worse by driving it while the coolant level was low. 3. So the report is fairly inconclusive(?) really in respect of the point you would have liked it to have shown - ie was the fault present when you bought it? 4. You could argue that as the failure occurred within 6 months of purchase, then under s19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) the fault must be presumed to have been present at sale - unless either (a) the seller can establish that the fault wasn't present at sale or (b) it would be "... incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract". See s19(15). The report doesn't actually establish that the fault wasn't present when you bought it, but it doesn't establish that it was present either. It might be slightly in your favour, but I think a court could go either way. [Edit: Some people will go so far as to say that if the seller cannot prove that the fault wasn't present when you bought it, then the court must presume that it was present. See earlier post #5 by @dx100uk] Whether the presumption under s19(14) that any fault within 6 months must have been present at purchase would be "... incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract", I simply don't know. 5. Regarding whether your continuing to drive the car exacerbated the problem - even if the underlying fault was present when you bought it - you know I've raised that issue with you before. However, you've correctly pointed out that the vehicle's manual gives no warning about regularly checking coolant levels, unless the warning light comes on, and you say the warning light never came on - so tell the court it never came on. If the AA breakdown report backs that up, great. (Have you any other evidence that might suggest the warning light wasn't working in the first place? Does the engineer's report cover it? I can't remember). If you just followed the instructions given in the manufacturer's manual you would have had no reason to suspect there was a coolant problem and no reason to stop driving, however... a court might still consider that a reasonable driver would have checked the coolant level "regularly" and that you were at fault if you didn't do so. I'm not certain you have a better chance than 50/50, but see what other posters think. If you have some evidence to explain why the coolant level warning light never came on (eg it's broken) I think that would help you. But if you didn't visually check the coolant level "regularly" I think that might count against you. =================================================================== Just to clarify - normally the seller would be entitled to one opportunity either to repair or to replace the vehicle. Am I correct in understanding that you have requested a repair but they have refused, hence you suing them? Be aware that when a consumer exercises their final right to reject within 6 months of purchase (see point 4 above), they are usually entitled to a full refund. But in the case of motor vehicles the seller can make a deduction from that refund to account for the use you've had of the vehicle. While you could still use it. Good luck. As I said - see what posters think.

I presume both you and the defendant jointly commissioned that report? It's just that it identifies only the defendant as the client. Who gave the "Instructions Received? I might have expected one of them to be something like "Is there any evidence that the underlying cause of failure (loss of coolant) was or was not present when the vehicle was sold?" because that is what is at the root of the dispute - if I've remembered correctly...

Out of interest, what is the 'bike?

As @Man in the middle has said you only have 28 days to return it or you commit a more serious offence. It's usually suggested that when returning it you keep a copy of what you sent, and send it first class from a post office counter and get free proof of postage. That way there is a statutory presumption that it was delivered two working days after it was posted. Also make sure your identification of yourself is unequivocal with no room for doubt.

Do you mean no invoice in respect of duty and tax arrived? If the invoice quotes a price excluding VAT, wouldn't VAT account for £35.22 of the £43.67? Amazon as a courier may not be obliged to provide you with an "invoice" for those charges, but they ought to be able to give you a breakdown of them. Have you tried just asking what the £43.67 is composed of rather than asking for an invoice?

I know @Ethel Street has already done their own calculations, but I suggest you double-check your figures and make sure you understand the numbers yourself. 20ft by 12ft doesn't equate to 44sq ft. It's 240sq ft. That's almost six times bigger that you think it is... If you are going to try to arrive at some sort of apportioned rent you need to ensure you're working from the correct relative areas. (And don't mix imperial and metric)

Well persevered. And thanks for letting us know the outcome.

(a) If she gets 6 points within two years of passing her test I don't think she can avoid revocation. As I understand it, revocation is an automatic administrative process carried out by the DVLA, and does not involve the court or prosecution, and there is no discretion involved. (b) The offence is committed by the driver holding the phone (or whatever) and using it. If the passenger was holding it then that should form the basis of your daughter's defence. However, it does raise the question of what evidence the police have that they have decided to prosecute her...

Ha! It was nothing serious and I wasn't in my sickbed! It's just that I hadn't really visited the forum for a couple of weeks and I was surprised to discover on Monday(?) that simeon had posted over the weekend after nothing for 7 weeks, and that the hearing was set for Wednesday. As I said yesterday, his schedule could have been worse and I think he's probably made the best of a bad case. I think his difficulty was always going to be justifying a claim for £17k arising out of a contrcat worth, what, about £6k? But despite being pressed by several posters as to whether the level of claim was justified, he insisted that he could produce quotes and estimates backing up the figure. The expert witness report didn't help in this respect.

I'm no expert on PCNs but I assume it would still be to your advantage if it turned out that the real first PCN to the real RK was out of time? It might be a waste of effort checking - as I suspect you can be 99% certain that it was in time - but if you know who the RK is you could still ask them to check? It's probably a waste of effort but up to you... I suppose you could always argue about the signage or that signage was obscured by the bus. As I said, I don't drive in London 'cos there's too many ways to be caught out, but I think looking closely at street view that there are "part time" traffic signs along the resticted parts of TCR that turn off and on (or close and open) depending on the time of day and whether the restriction is in force or not. This is the sort of thing I mean, and it's a sign between New Oxford Street and where you were caught. The vertical slats open and close to turn the sign on and off. Or at least I assume that's how it works. Tottenham Ct Rd - Google Maps Here's one going the other way that seems to closed/off 245 Tottenham Ct Rd - Google Maps, and the same one open/on 242 Tottenham Ct Rd - Google Maps I'll leave it to others to give you advice as to whether to pay up and get a discount or dispute the signage etc.

I forgot to say that I also mentioned this a couple of weeks ago. I have no particular knowledge about PCNs, but I seem to recall that when liability for a hire car is transferred from the RK to the person hiring the car, then the enforcing authority has to follow a set procedure in cancelling the original PCN before issuing a new one, and that they often fail to do this properly, thus making the new ticket invalid. But I have no expert knowledge in this area and I don't know if I've got that right, or whether it applies to all car hire arrangements, or if it would specifically apply in your case. Hopefully a more knowledgeable poster than me - somebody like @Michael Browne - could confirm if I'm right or wrong and what you would need to do to see if you could take advantage of it. Good luck

It looks like you were caught just after the junction with Chenies Street and just before Goodge Street station? Unfortunately the Google maps street view for that precise spot doesn't have a view later than October 2008. But how did you get onto Tottenham Ct Rd? For instance, If you turned onto it from Goodge St the signage at the junction seems to clearly say buses and cycles only from 8am to 7pm Monday to Saturday, and the road markings just after you turn onto TCR from Goodge Street direct "all traffic routes" to turn off to the right. See 9 Goodge St - Google Maps and 3 Goodge St - Google Maps (Both of these views from September 2022). If you didn't turn onto TCR from Goodge St then I'd agree that I can't see much other signage approaching that spot on street view to indicate that you can't drive through, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. And on street view there do seem to be suspiciously few cars for a main thoroughfare in that part of London, which leads me to think cars clearly aren't allowed. (But I don't drive in London so may have completely the wrong impression... ) I think if you wanted to dispute whether the signage was adequate to convey the prohibition on cars, you'd have to go back and check it. See what other posters with more experience of dealing with London PCNs think. I'm sure somebody will have more idea than me. Are you sure of the timings? On the sign just before you turn onto TCR from Goodge St (see first link above) it seems to say buses and cycles only from 8am to 7pm(?)

OK. So you originally started this thread because you wanted to know if the PCN you had seen a copy of was out of time and therefore invalid. Right? That would depend on whether that PCN had been the first one issued in the chain and on whether it had been issued to the RK or not. I read it that you are now confirming that the PCN that you saw a copy of was not the PCN issued to the RK and was not the first PCN in the chain? If that's the case then it doesn't matter if it was issued by Camden more than 28 days after the contravention. Do you happen to know if the very first PCN in the chain was issued to the RK in time? It almost certainly would have been but might be worth double-checking if you can.

But I thought you were certain that you knew who the RK was? Two weeks ago you scathingly rubbished me when I pointed out (correctly as it turns out) that it would be a mistake just to assume, as you had: (1) that the car hire company and not somebody else was the RK; (2) that the PCN that went to the car hire company must have been the first one; and (3) that that PCN must have been out of time. At least Michael Browne had the good grace to accept that I could well be correct and didn't just dismiss me out of hand without proper consideration: Whereas your comments were: and I suggest you go back to the classroom and re-learn the golden rule....