Jump to content

lookinforinfo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    7,387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    80

lookinforinfo last won the day on March 24

lookinforinfo had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,934 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

9,580 profile views
  1. Why not? As long as it does not say in the heading "Without Prejudice" you are free to complain about extra costs which were specifically not allowed in the PE v Beavis case.
  2. Don't tell them that they have not provided a contract. Without it they cannot prove they have a case so the Judge should throw out the case. You should have a copy of your WS that you can refer to plus any other points that you can make though if they are not already in your WS or defence they may not be accepted.
  3. If you haven't emailed it yet, as it is a deed it requires signatures and addresses from directors of both companies along with the names and addresses of independent witnesses to the directors signatures. On top of that there is a requirement that Realty confirm that Deansgate can sign on their behalf. the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. if you haven't admitted who was driving in any way so far, TP will have to provide some sort of evidence that you were the driver. But even if you were the driver it's no biggy since they will lose anyway since it is just a number plate difference.
  4. The WS is very disappointing coming form a barrister albeit apparently not much experience with PoFA. He of all people should recognise that being parked is not the same as "car broken down". Jopson v Homeguard cleared up what was parking and whilst broken down was not included that was only because the Judge did not exhaust all the possibilities of what defines the word parking.Moreover the OP was leaving well within the time limits until his car wouldn't start. The barrister of all people should know that the amount that can be claimed under PoFA is the amount on the sign. And he should also know that putting an unspecified amount on a sign does not commit a motorist to paying an extra specified amount. In any event the Beavis knocked on the head any extra charges. The signs displayed on the WS are illegible.There is a case for arguing that this was deliberate to prevent the Judge from seeing that the signs are not in the name of CEL but instead they are either in the name of ABC Parking Solutions Ltd for which there is a letter of Authority from someone who is not a Director and other signs in the name of ABC Car Parking Solutions ltd who there appears to be no trace of. The signage should be in the name of CEL to comply with PoFA. On top of that the entrance sign is only an offer to treat so does not offer any kind of contract. I notice that no contract appears to have been provided. Do not tell them since without it their case should be thrown out anyway.
  5. Thank you for posting the sign. Is that the sign at the entrance, or inside, or both? Their PCN that you showed on post 3 does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. there is no parking period mentioned on the Notice [timings on the photos do not count] they have missed out the words in parentheses in Sectoion9[2][f] of the Act (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; They are also very woolly when asking that the PCN is paid. It should be the keeper who is invited to pay though in S9[2][e] there is a provision for the driver to pay so I would take their version as not being compliant. In addition we are seeing more and more PCNs including the unlawful extra charge of £60 . There is no mention of it at all in PoFA. Indeed the Act includes the fact that all that can be claimed is the amount on the sign. It is about time that this practice is stamped out since it appears to give that extra charge an appearance of legitimacy. That amount in itself should render the PCN non compliant and while it may not, it should be castigated in your Witness Statement should it get that far.
  6. The contract they have sent isn't valid since it hasn't been signed by VCS and the signature of the Client [if any ] has been redacted. I assume that a valid unredacted contract does exist but that is the one that will need to be produced in court. as AMP is the land owner it will require an authority of some kind from them allowing the Leeds Bradford company to sign on its behalf. They don't appear to know what tailgating is-their definition is a joke. Where you have ANPR cameras in force, a car leaving the car park too close to another means that the camera fails to pick up the vrm of one of the vehicles . This can also occur when a high sided vehicle leaves and obscures the vrm of another vehicle. If one paid after exiting then one vehicle could avoid paying. As this is not the payment system here, one wonders the reason for such a fuss. ANPR systems are particularly poor at detecting and preventing tailgating hence the reason for so many double dipping cases where the tailgater returns later. There is also another form of tailgating where the vehicle behind the first car is travelling within two seconds of the car in front. Whilst this is an offence i would doubt that VCS patrols would have the equipment necessary to check that condition. One wonders if it is a requirement of the land owner [or the Bye Laws ] and VCS are just going through the motions to mollify their client. [This is not of much help to Happy Holidays just me musing Though if anyone could find a way of using it to rubbish the contract that would help HH].
  7. We don't know if ABC in whatever name they used have not signed a contract with CEL. If they have then was it signed by Mr Malekos or an actual director of the company. Might be worthwhile getting photos of the current signage to see if the ABC signs are still there. It won't affect your case in one sense but mentioning it if they are still using ABC might call into question the car park's validity.
  8. Suerly that can't be lawful when PoFA only invites the keeper to name the driver. It must be a breach of the Unfair Trading regulations 2008?
  9. I too have used the Pressdram letter but as it was sent to one of the parking rogues solicitors it probably was not understood as I don't feel they are proper solicitors.. Had you written to the hospital when you first received the PCN there may have been chances of getting it cancelled though I am surprised that they allowed them to erect signs where many people pick up and drop off. As it is with a Court case imminent the hospital would probably be unable to intervene. Nothing to worry about from your point anyway. No Stopping or No Waiting cannot form a contract with motorists so you cannot breach a contract that doesn't exist. And you should include the fact that they didn't give enough advance warning of the change in parking rules prior to your PCN. Once we see your original PCN we will be able to see if they have sent you a compliant PCN. Most of the rogues don't and I don't suppose that NPC will be any different. just be careful not to get another PCN at St Thomas' when getting photos of the NPC signage. Please don't forget to include their entrance sign too. In the meantime could you please complete this Have you received a Parking Ticket - please fill this out?
  10. Welcome back NorthMonk. You look as if you are trying to catch up with my wife who has has 12 PCNs on the go at one time. I have never paid one of them [nor has she] and quite a few have dropped off being more than six years with no contact. Others have cancelled and the rest have just gone silent.. I liked your letter having not heard "Go forth and multiply " for years. There is another one which I have used which can be read here. Quite funny if Parking Eye were the recipient. Arkell v. Pressdram NEWS.LETTERSOFNOTE.COM How to respond to a frivolous legal threat Moving on to your current PCN why were you at a no stopping area when St Thomas' does have a drop off point?
  11. I expect you are sorry you didn't get your day in Court. It is always a good result when you don't even have to go to Court to get your win. Great result. And thanks for your donation. This Forum helps so many people who have problems not just with the parking rogues so it is important that they are able to continue their work through the financial help of members like yourself.
  12. Under PoFA if the keeper has not provided the name and address of the driver and not paid the PCN within 28 days the keeper then becomes responsible for the charge. So they should only be pursuing the keeper not the driver as well. It should be one or the other, it cannot be both. Typical of Gladstones. Then trying to charge an unlawful £60 . Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  13. I'm sorry but there is no way that an unregulated debt collector could instruct a legal company to do anything. Ohh I'm sorry once again- it was CST law. They would probably carry out instructions from my pet rabbit.
×
×
  • Create New...