On certificate


Excess Reimbursement £7,000  (Total for the term of the policy)

In Policy document


This Policy shall be governed by English law

You should, where possible, contact Us within 90 days of You being charged by the Car Rental Company. Please
quote Your Policy number as a reference in all correspondence.

This Policy operates on a reimbursement basis, which means once You have paid the Rental Excess or
Administration Charges due under Your Car Rental Agreement, You can reclaim the costs from Us where
permitted by this Policy.

Your Car Rental Agreement may require You to reserve the Rental Excess amount against Your credit or debit
card when You collect the Rental Vehicle. If the Rental Vehicle is involved in an Accident or suffers Damage for
which You are held responsible, the Rental Excess amount or an Administration Charge will be deducted from
this reserve, and You will receive a loss damage report. You will then use this report to claim back the Rental
Excess or Administration Charge



Hence I wonder if they can assert that the Bank charges are a separate entity from the Rental Excess, as not emanating from the car rental company, but from the card issuer.

Clearly a mess up by Greenwich Council on their website. Make sure you keep evidence in case website is updated.

The restrictions clearly should include Sunday. As that is the main day that day trippers come to Greenwich for market, park etc.

Sunday hours are different. Ending at 6pm rather than 5pm.  The council online map is wrong and forgot to include Sunday restrictions as well as mon-sat.

The thing is... Playing devil's advocate.

But isn't it incumbent on motorists to follow road signs?

It follows that the fact that the website is wrong, is mitigation only. And therefore cannot be considered by Tribunal.

So reliant on Greenwich Council to play fair, with discretion only.

Unless you set a trap for failure to consider.

Some councils also give grace periods for permit expiry let alone the lower level penalty. 

FWIW Greenwich have a grace period of 1 week.  Not seen this written anywhere (policy etc), but I asked a CEO.


Surprised Continuous contravention not been mentioned. 


See London Tribunals case 2110166557 which seems similar.

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00.



The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were on holiday from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the Penalty Charge Notices were incurred.



I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been received.



However, I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011.



I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week.



There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.



For the reasons given this appeal is allowed.




 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLI1iSsGrE

He is not asking how to proceed. He has already proceeded before seeking advice (which is not in itself a bad thing). He is asking what his rights are as regards the replacement.

So far we agree.

Apologies if I raised the question in the wrong forum.  A minor transgression. And irrelevant to the point being discussed.

In effect his question is...  if the replacement fails during the first 6 months, does the 6 month rule apply?

So what you are saying is:  If I had couched the same question hypothetically, then it would have been a hypothetical question!
Got it.

My question wasn't "in effect": "if the replacement fails during the first 6 months, does the 6 month rule apply?" 
My question was "in effect" : "Do I have the same rights with a replacement item as a new one?"   

There is no hypothesis in the second question. To introduce one is to second guess the intent of original question, best to stick to the letter of the law, so to speak. 

The facts in this non-case are entirely hypothetical.

On the contrary, the facts in the case are very specific.  An item was faulty. I will be receiving a replacement when replacement in stock.  That's all. I have not speculated on the replacement being faulty, or indeed anything else.   

To question my statuary rights with a replacement, doesn't need receipt, or hypothesis, of an actual faulty item to ask.   

@ManxTom  (thanks) and others, have effectively addressed the issue. So the question in context was clearly understandable. 

I really don't know why this has triggered you so much. At worst this is a pedantic disagreement over language. No need for "utter twaddle" and "I'm not sure whether you are genuinely this obtuse" etc.   But this is the internet...

Anyway. No need to answer. There's no point in going over the same grounds again. We've both made our points. T

Have a good day.

OP, with respect I'm not sure why the question arises because it considers a hypothetical situation....'On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?'

With equal respect HCA, and an element of confusion, there is nothing hypothetical about my question, or my situation.

I have been offered a replacement in September, and I have accepted the offer at face value.

Had my query be posited around the possibility that the replacement might mot arrive...     
Or
If I had phrased the question   "If the replacement product were to fail, would I be covered by Consumer Rights legislation..." etc   
Then, I grant you , you  could consider it a hypothetical situation.

But I didn't. My question is a general "Does the clock reset on receipt of a new replacement under Consumer Rights legislation?".  No "if" necessary or included.   

BUT...

I am intrigued. So humour me.

Why would it have been inappropriate to ask a hypothetical question anyway?   

The first place I would look is your contract, not Consumer Rights legislation.

Nope. My question was specifically referring to Consumer Rights legislation. Warrantee and good will are next steps, if and only if necessary. 

And if the answer isn't apparent then simply write to the company and ask the question. When you've exhausted all internal options and if you are dissatisfied with the outcome then would be time to look elsewhere to see whether the result you need may be achieved by other means.

I have no intention, nor need, to write to the company and ask the question. Unless, and until, the replacement item were to fail.     

So far you're quids in i.e. a new iron, possibly upgraded, and no request to return the one with the fault which - you never know- might be of a temporary nature.

I fully expect that when the item is back in stock, I will be asked to return the faulty item, before replacement is sent out. Clearly it would be a bonus, as the existing item is usable, and useful.  But I consider it unlikely, so it is not a factor to be considered.

And it wasn't an iron!   

You must be happy with the VFM aspect of their goods otherwise it would be common-sense to take the refund.

I bought the item in a sale. If I took the refund, I wouldn't be able to replace item with equivalent for the price of refund. 

I recently bought an electronic item , on January 17th, which developed a fault.  [The fault was probably there from the beginning, but that's by the by]

I am aware of the Consumer Rights Act (which replaced the Sale of Goods Act in October 2015).
This allows the legal right to a refund if faulty item and returned within 30 days of receiving it.
If item fails within 6 months, the vendor must offer a replacement, repair or refund.

The clock starts on the day after taking delivery. I was fortunate in raising the issue just before the 6 months timeout.

I believe that after 6 months, the onus is on the customer to prove item was faulty at time of purchase [rather than it be assumed], and in the case of refund an allowance can be deducted for usage.

In my case I was offered a refund or, as the item is currently out of stock, a new replacement when restocked in September. 

As the item I have is usable, albeit faulty, I accepted the offer of a replacement in September. [I think the item is actually discontinued, and I may get lucky by getting an upgrade to latest model].

So I'm happy with outcome.

My question is.

On receipt of replacement item in September. Does the protection clock start again from zero?