Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Candlemaker

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. ThankS Guys :~) Lamma - Which legal say...The Dunlop case deals with the issue of penalties and in this matter, if the signs detail the fines that will be incurred, you may not be able challenge the level of the fines as they will constitute a core term of the contract. Kiptower - by parking there, with all the warning signs detailing the charges, isn't the driver 'agreeing' by making the choice to park (devil's advocate again!) JonCris - I don't know re rights conferred on PPC. Can't really find out as I don't want to contact anyone about this - the 'avoid contact issue'. Cheers
  2. Interestingly CEL only refer to 'the amount' of £120 i.e. NOT to a fine or penalty. However, the warning notices in the car park refer to 'a charge'. I agree to all said above - as I say I have done 'battle' with Vinci before (by not replying) and won. However, you have to understand the concern that people like me on the forum express - we need to be 100%. And, when you're getting advice from solicitors that contradict the advice on this forum from, with respect, people who's backgrounds/knowledge/expertise is unknown, it makes it understandable that we should query things, as many d
  3. A127 - sorry, I'm still finding your last post a tad confusing- not saying it's wrong, just I can't understand it. The latest from Which Legal is.... It is correct that private parking is governed by contract law and not criminal law. There is no right to park on private land but if you do park on private land you agree to be bound by any terms and conditions that may be laid out in any signs that appear on the land, as long these signs are clearly visible. The contract will exist between the driver that parked the vehicle and the landowner/parking company. Accordingly if t
  4. ....and I shall be pointing all that out to them. Mind you some of these solicitors on such 'legal services' are only there 'cos they ain't got a real job'
  5. Here's a new one. Although I have chosen to do what I did with the last [problem] i.e. nothing, and I heard no more, I thought I would run my wife's Enforcement Notice from CEF past 'Which Legal Services' just to see what they say. Answer: "...by parking in a private car park you are agreeing to the Terms and Conditions as laid out on the signs. Providing the signs/conditions were clearly displayed, and detail the fines that will be incurred, then you will be liable to pay the fine". What says anyone to that ?
  6. My wife has just got an Enforcement Notice from CEL - Century Retail Park, Watford. £120 !! I'm going to do exactly what I did to VINCI when they tried a similar stunt re parking at Stanmore LT Stn i.e. NOTHING!! I never heard from them again :~)
  7. This is the reply I have sent by return. Thank you for your somewhat belated reply. It would appear that there is no legal understanding in your argument. To quote a 'Railway Bylaw' Vinci have to be specific as to which particular Bylaw - not reference to a board listing various offences. Also, they have not issued a legal Penalty Charge Notice with all the relevant explanations on it. What they have issued is an invoice, purporting to be a legal PCN. This is an offence under the Fraud Act. If TfL condone that sort of activity then they are complicit in Vinci's illegal ac
  8. This is Vinci's very belated reply..... Thank you for your email response. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you. Vinci at the time would have had the power to issue penalty notices for: Parking without a valid ticket Parking with a valid ticket but outside a designated bay The bylaws that Vinci would have quoted would have been the ones displayed at all ticket machines and the entrances of London Underground (LU) car parks which identify rules relating to parking in LU car parks. I appreciate that you do not intend on contacting Vin
  9. Brian, do you work for Vinci ?! WHY would I pay a £50 unenforceable invoice, purporting to be a genuine Parking ticket, for a £1 ticket that I had in fact paid for?! The only hassle will be theirs, writing pointless, unanswered letters
  10. Which means the fact that Vinci have issued 'an invoice' means they can't pursue 'an invoice' through the magistrates court. It would have to be through a county court - which conflicts with Railway Bylaws ?!?!
  11. I have written to LU again, asking their legal dept. to comment on the points mentioned by RichardMCheers
  12. Thanks Crem and Richard. I have written back to LU with a couple of those points, but you have both given me extra 'food for thought'. I did notice that LU didn't answer my specific questions particularly in respect of proprietary rights. Hence my latest letter.cheersCD
  13. UPDATE I have today received the following in writing from London Underground!! can confirm the following with regard to the car park at Stanmore. The car park at Stanmore is LU property to which at the time Vinci did have the rights to management of the car park on behalf of LU. This would result in them collecting fares, issuing penalty notices. All customers park within the published terms and conditions that are displayed at the entrance to every car park. It should be noted that NCP now have the same rights at this car park as Vinci are no longer have the ri
  • Create New...