Jump to content

lookinforinfo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    7,350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

lookinforinfo last won the day on March 2

lookinforinfo had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,921 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

9,523 profile views
  1. We'll cross our fingers and wait expectantly with baited breath. i can't see how they can brush that under the carpet.
  2. Many thanks to DX for producing the Excel case. Cardiff Devil I would print out the whole case so that your judge sees the original Judge's thought processes and how he arrived at dismissing the whole case even though the defendant was guilty. It is worth reading and understanding it yourself. However your Judge may still ignore the case and come to his own decision.
  3. Why does VCS keep doing this. they call a "No Stopping" and "No parking" rule as a contractual issue. And yet neither rule can ever form a contract as they are both prohibitory and therefore there can be no offer fro the motorist to consider. VCS are hoping that you do not know this and will pay up thinking all is lost when nothing could be further from the truth. You have every chance of winning despite them knowing who was driving . i was also going to say that it was surprising that they were pursuing you as the keeper as well as the driver before I realised that Elms were the solicitors. They should know that airport land is covered by Byelaws so hhe liability lies with the driver only-the keeper cannot be pursued. dummies.
  4. G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson - The court office at the County Court at Bradford, Civil And Family - Studocu Please copy, read and understand the case from 20020 and include it in your WS. the Judge had decided that Excel had won the argument, their rules were breached. However by adding on the £60 the Judge threw out the whole case. you should add to your claim that as this double recovery has been going on so long that it is time for the Courts to continue to take drastic action and throw out the whole case. It is believed to be repayment of the debt collectors who work on a "No Win , No Fee " basis. As the case is being heard in court, obviously the debt collector did not win. In any event motorists do not have a contract with these debt collectors so there is no legal reason for this cost to be added.
  5. Whenever you write or explain what happened in the car park, always say "the driver entered the car park" or the driver parked the car". Never say "I parked the car" etc. That way even if you were the driver you don't divulge the fact thus protecting your id so that the rogues do not know who was driving.
  6. Good news about the old ones. If you need any help with the new one you only have to ask. And of course that goes for the old ones too. In fact it might help if you filled out the questionnaire- PS I liked your letter to the PPC [Smart?] re their lack of providing an SAR though it was a tad politer than I would have sent.
  7. I read their contract and interestingly they say they observe their ATA Code of Conduct. They then say that they will apply for planning permission-which I am sure they haven't. Could be worth checking the local Council planning portal which would give you a stick to beat your MA with as to why OPS were brought in.
  8. Is this a new case or one of your old ones going back to 2022? Either way you might be in line for a bit of compo from the rogues. How are the other PCNs going? Are they cancelled or still being negotiated?
  9. Hi and welcome to the Forum. All airports are covered by Byelaws which means that the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable for the charge. If you haven't appealed and revealed who was driving you will win hands down. Even if you have admitted who was driving there are still several good chances that you won't have to pay a penny even if you end up in Court. To get a clearer picture which help you avoid payment could you please complete the following questions including the original PCN. Please redact your name. address and car vrm but do include the dates and times.
  10. Because the PCN was posted after the 14 day margin the charge for the PCN cannot be transferred to the keeper so only the driver is now liable. So do not appeal as you may give away who was driving-perhaps inadvertently. As long as PE does not know who was driving they are stuck since anyone of thousands of motorists are able to drive your car and if it gets as far as Court Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. Is it possible to get photos of the car park as there appears to be a disparity in their claims. Have you kept the slip . If not did you look to see if the correct time and vrm were recorded correctly. Have you checked with the restaurant to see if they can help get your PCN cancelled. At the same time can they confirm what time you left there just in case PE have got the timings wrong on their ANPR cameras. [I used to get out of some London restaurants around 6 am in my young days though I am surprised that Ilford would be that late even on a Saturday.]
  11. Thanks for letting us know your decision. It's never easy coming to a conclusion like this and you have taken time to take all matters into consideration. Time being an important one. I wish you luck and hopefully you won't park in a CEL car park for a while. I believe you have six years to make a case so you can change your mind.
  12. I recently posted a case on Iamgnome's thread that helps your residential case. i have also included this one for you just to show the other one was not a fluke. Parking Prankster: Link Parking and Overstone Court - getting your money back PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Link Parking entered into an agreement with Isis Cardiff Management Company Limited to control unauthorised parking at Overstone Court, Card... .
  13. You are getting there though I would point out in your WS at 2.8 that you could add that neither of those companies are members of the BPA nor the IPC and are not able to apply to the DVLA for motorists data. Nor are they obliged to observe the rules of PoFA. Which is why their signs do not comply with the BPA code of Conduct. In 4.2 it is best to quote the actual clause from PoFA as not all Judges are au fait with PoFa. In this case the parking period is Schedule 4 Section 9[2]a] (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; However as you have outed yourself as the driver it is probably not worth mentioning any of it. your 4.4 point should follow or be included in point 4.1 to make sense. you should also ask for the whole case to be struck out because of the extra charge.
×
×
  • Create New...