I've removed the QRCODE boxes

as you can get apps that read them.

as EB says

TRUS don't own the land

so cant make contracts with these muppets re parking

I bet

Hmmmm......I think something has gone wrong here, it looks weird from my end?

those three images are:

1. As you drive in

2. Close up

3. Same sign from different angle.

More images as soon as I can upload them.

Thank you for your help!!

pix.pdf

Oh, where to start!

Their signage makes absolutely no sense at all. According to the Ringo signs (image IMG_8534), you can pay for parking for a month, at a cost of £93. All well and good. But.. According to the G24 sign below it. If you leave the site while the vehicle remains in the car park, they'll send you a Parking Charge for £100.

So, one presumes that if you pay to park for a month, you have to sit in the car for the entire month! Not much of a holiday

The sign... (image 2) according to their own sign, "Data is recorded for crime prevention, crime detection, public safety and prosecution of offenders". No mention of parking. And parking your car certainly isn't covered by one of the uses that they themselves have detailed. So perhaps they've used a magic wand to conjure up the keepers details then. Yes, that'll be it, I'm sure.

Or perhaps they aren't registered as a Data Controller for parking purposes and therefore have absolutely no right to process your data in this way. (I don't know one way or the other, I'm just spit balling).

Just brilliant!!!

Sooooo what can my friend do about this?

I'm eager to help him so I'll do what is necessary!!

Thank you so much for the help on here, it's so incredible!

Should I incorporate all those points in to an appeal for my friend?

I'm seeing my friend tomorrow,

please can I ask what to tell him exactly?

Also you were asked for images of the other signs within the rest of the retail park.

You were asked for these because the land all belongs to the same landowner regardless of who the tenant is

having proof that other companies are involved reduces the chance these particular lot can show that you knew that a contract was being offered by them

> Do not make their job easier,

use everything you can to show that no contract was property offered and considered then accepted.

He wont be appealing to the IAS, waste of time but will need to be writing a letter telling G24 to get lost at some point but not within their timescales.

Hi again all.

Apologies, I got the wrong end of the stick and took photos of other signs in the Toys R Us car park.

To be fair to me, I had my wife and crying baby daughter in the car and, beating in mind I love 25 odd miles away from the site, I was in a rush.

To further help my friend (who is getting a bit edgy now), do you guys think I need to get back there?

Thank you so much for this.

It wouldn't hurt if you could.

I don't think we need pictures of all the signs, but a couple of the UKPC ones (there's one on the approach to the roundabout as you enter the site, and another to the right just as you exit the roundabout towards the entrance to Toys R Us (they'd be useful)) and then get a couple of pictures of the 'Horizon' signs from the Sainsbury's car park.

This will help the case as it will show that any contracts that exist are unlikely to have been negotiated with the land owner but with the individual tenants which, according to the law, doesn't cut the mustard.

They want to use the POFA 2012 against you(r friend), so it's important to use that same law against them. It works both ways!

Okay guys,

I’m off to visit that car park later and will do what I can.

...then for the nightmare that is uploading the pics

Just put them all in one pdf

I’ve got some good photos this morning, guys!!

Hey guys, how does this look?

I think I've done it?

SUN MORNING PDF.pdf

Nice pictures.

The signs around the site convey which company manages which part of the site.

The G24 signs look very similar to the UKPC signs, especially when you approach the ToysRus section. The top sign looks similar to UKPC and the lower sign is too small to read on entry. From the signs around the car park, I would suggest that there are not enough for you to be able to form an opinion. and I couldn't see any on the store wall.

Nice to know that the landowners details have been placed in a prominent position although I don't think any complaint to them will make much difference.

I think ericsbrother will be able to assist better than I so best wait a while

I would say that G24 might have a bit of a problem here.

Depending on which way you've approached Toy's R Us (bearing in mind that you may have come from one of the other shops (rather than directly from the main entrance)), it could well be argued that you have already accepted a 'contract' with (not least) UKPC. And as the UKPC signs on the roadways give no time limit, so...

As you might have already read the UKPC signs, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that you wouldn't stop to read another parking sign, because you've already read it and agreed to its terms

As an observation only. I'm also not sure where Horizon stand on their (seemingly) unilateral decision to reduce the free period on match days, but that's an entirely separate issue and doesn't concern us in this matter.

there is plenty here to cause enough confusion as to who is offering what.

Now have the parking co's all had to bung Savills a few quid as overall managers to get a contract with an individual retailer we ask ourselves because they have no say in the matter either.

Most of the signs are not contracts but "invitations to treat" or even prohibitive.

One of UKPC appears to be on a roadway that approaches Toys r Us so whose sign has the superiority, the first or the last?

The match day sign is a laugh,

what matches and how are you supposed to know what days are relevant?

Again, not a contract as too vague and a separtae sign so never could be a core term.

That has been seen elsewhere and booted out of the ground so to speak.

In short plenty to beat them with and hopefully they will see reason when they get to sending out letter before claim and you respond in a forthright manner.

Telling them they are stupid before that event wont make any difference because they ARE stupid.

Wow!!

I am in awe of these bits of info,

I had no idea...

.but now it's explained,

it does kind of make sense.

Thank to ALL of you.

I, and my friend, really do appreciate all the hard work of you all.

does my friend send a response to them or wait for them to take the next step, whatever that is?

do not respond to any other letters that come in the mean time from DCA's or fake/tame solicitors.

await letter of claim or letter before action.

does my friend send a response to them or wait for them to take the next step, whatever that is?

I thought that had been made clear, you let them waste their money chasing this up and when you/he gets a letter indicating it is a letter before action s a pre-action protocol you then tell them they are wrong and you will be fighting it and beating them hands down. You ignore them up to that point.

Now, please when you read things read them very carefully as letters will arrive that are designed to scare people into paying up by looking as though they are something they are not.

Letters speaking of bailiffs ect are actually unlawful harassment

but some dca's still send them out and that is why one should never assume they means something other than exactly what they say.

Indeed.

Any kind of appeal to an IPC member is just a waste of a stamp and appealing to the IAS (when (not if) your appeal to the operator is rejected) is just throwing good money after bad.

The only course of action with these money grabbing halfwits is to let them do all the running, wasting their own cash, and then let them have both barrels when the likes of Gladstones or BW Legal have their pants down and charge them even more money to get involved.

Hi everybody,

Please can I ask for some advice on this, the latest letter, which is worrying my friend?

Am I right in saying that what they state about 'if we don't hear from you, we'll take this to mean you agree you'll liable for it' regarding who is actually 'liable' for it is, essentially rubbish?

CCF11012018.pdf

14.3.18.pdf

It's from Daft Recovery Pass.

Just about the only "fact" on that letter will be the date, and if I were you, I'd double check that

These clowns can be completely and safely ignored.

Very, very funny!!!

I thought as much.

However, how can I explain this to my friend?

Ie - what 'pointers' are there that it's rubbish?

whats the golden rule about a DCA craigten...

Ermmmmm.....don't respond to them?

there is that

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and have

ZERO LEGAL POWERS

If you like, I'll scan in and upload my 40 or 50 letters from Daft Recovery Pass, all saying the same things. And all of which have been ignored (or I've sent a reply just to wind them up (but that's just me)).

According to DRPL, I'm "liable" for all of mine too (even though I'm not).

Total private parking tickets issued. = Upwards of 40 now.

Total private parking tickets paid. = 0

Total appearances in County Court. = 0

I'm desperate to get my particular bunch of cowboys to take me to court but they won't. They know that they don't have a case and I'd win.

Letters from DRPL are just toilet paper.