Jump to content

jonnymango

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

jonnymango last won the day on September 13 2019

jonnymango had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

1 Follower

About jonnymango

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. It stinks to high heaven. I think I'll keep pushing the LLDC to issue enforcement action on the illegal signage, but I haven't got the enthusiasm to appeal and go through it all again. Honestly, you wouldn't mind if they even played by their own rules, but if the courts only see them as guidelines and that simply by scatter gunning tiny signs all over the place they have done their duty.
  2. Ha! Maybe. Young judge too, I thought it was going to go my way when he himself picked up on the permit holders only sign next to the car, and he questioned the woman from Gladstones on whether they were going after driver or keeper, but at the end he just summed up that he thought they had done what they needed to do, didn’t criticise me or my statement, but that he found in their favour. Can I just clarify that when I say i’ll be bitter and move on, that’s not directed at any of you who have offered your time and knowledge over the past two years. Just with the legal system that
  3. Sadly that did not go my way. Judge seemingly happy for PPC to flout their own CoP Guidelines because they are just that, not bothered by illegal signage, happy that signage was sufficient around the site to constitute and enforce a contract over the whole area regardless of the permit only sign and that driver has responsibility for checking signage, happy that the NTK was POFA compliant, and that keeper liability was established. Shame, not about the money - £275 in the end, this was never about the money, just the principle of these shady operators. Can
  4. Still waiting. Good job I got a pay and display ticket til 2pm to be on the safe side.
  5. And right on cue their rep just came to suggest having a chat “to discuss my position if I would like that?” I replied, “not really, I think my position is pretty clear”
  6. Morning all, here nice and early, hearing is set for 10. Apparently Gladstones have decided to attend after all. Interesting. Any last minute advice?
  7. Thanks EB. it also confirms that they shouldn't have the right to obtain keeper details doesn't it. The planning officer has said they will be contacting Gemini about it and will keep me updated. I've asked that they throw the book at them with enforcement and prosecution on the basis that they are profiting unlawfully from illegal signage. Definitely going to go after them myself for unlawfully obtaining keeper details if I win this.
  8. The London Legacy Development Corporation planning department have just confirmed to me that there is no advertisement consent for their signage. Frustrating as it's too late to include the confirmation in my witness statement, but good to know. Any suggestions on how best to use this information?
  9. Well, I'm taking it to the post office to go special delivery now. One to the court, one to Gladstones. 7 pages of statement, and 25 of annotated supporting photos and references all referenced in to the statement.for the following: 01: The claim form 02: Forbidding Signage 03: Horizon Parking – forbidding signage 04: ES Parking – forbidding sianage 05: PCM v Bull – Forbidding signage 06: BPA CoP Signage Requirements 07: Advertisement consent & requirement to adhere to BPA CoP to obtain Keeper Details 08: PPC - Landowner contractual breac
  10. Thoughts on adding the following please: Authority to enforce charges: 1. The Claimant included in their witness statement the PPC’s contract with the land owner. The failure of the PPC’s signage to comply with the BPA CoP puts them in breach of their own contract with the land owner: · The contract states under The Company’s Obligations: · “The Company shall at all times in connection with the provision of the services… ..Comply with and adhere to all the terms of the British Parking Associations AOS Code; · Maintain
  11. I've added that FTM Dave, my second point now states: The Claimant asserts that the Defendant being the Keeper, is also the Driver. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the Claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the Driver. The Defendant does not admit to being the Driver and the burden of proof to establish the identity of the Driver lies with the Claimant. and my final point: 1. The Keeper has not identified the Driver and
  12. Thanks EB, I'll add the following in the first section " The Claim" : The Claimant asserts that the Defendant being the Keeper, is also the Driver. The Defendant has only been identified by the DVLA as the Keeper of the vehicle, the Claimant has not produced any evidence to identify the Driver at the time of parking and the Keeper has not identified the driver. The Defendant does not admit to being the Driver and the burden of proof to establish the identity of the Driver lies with the Claimant. Other than that, all good?
  13. Revised statement attached for review if Dx or Eb would be so kind. Witness Statement Redacted.pdf
  14. Apologies, please delete my already censored profanity! Dx, would you review my proposed additional statements in posts 118- 120 and let me know if you think all of this is good to go? thanks in advance
×
×
  • Create New...