Smart Cookie
Registered UsersChange your profile picture
-
Posts
4 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Smart Cookie last won the day on October 6 2012
Smart Cookie had the most liked content!
Reputation
51 Excellent-
It seems advisable to contact the landlord with the requirement that he instructs ParkDirectUK to deal sensibly with the situation. PDU should not have exclusive rights to decide the rules that are instituted for the benefit of the landowner and you the leaseholder. It seems satisfactory that the charge was imposed in the first instance but not that it was persisted with on discovery of the facts. The sole proper purpose of the rules is to prevent abuse of the parking privilege/right which did not occur. In particular, do the rules say that a charge is imposable each day or just for the (single) occurrence? if it's ambiguous then it falls to be applicable to the one event in your favour and not five. If the rule is vague then it might be possible for several NtDs be issued on one day making it a licence to print money and a misuse of the landlord's intention. Needs checking and the intervention of the landlord. I regret having nothing better to offer. feakdesl
-
Stopped in a bay and no clear evidence
Smart Cookie replied to Tiagob's topic in Local Authority Parking and Traffic Offences
It's not polite to criticise other posters bluntly but the recommendation to deny the event must be the most stupid and reprehensible comment on a forum ever - apart from being an incitement to criminal conduct. To have then tried to justify it makes it only worse. It is a criminal offence to make a false statement to a parking adjudicator, maximum fine £5000. It seems that the 'victim' of the PCN had only himself to blame and is unaware that driving away in attempt to evade a PCN since March 2008 is foolish and ineffective as it will result in just such a PCN. If this 'victim' does seriously intend to challenge the PCN he should initially ask the council for copies of all photographs taken (will get better pictures than already provided) and ask for a copy of the CEO's notebook entry relating to the issuing of his PCN. If it ends up being this victim's word against that of the CEO then the CEO could and should win the argument. There is action in progress elsewhere right now where it is proven that a dishonest CEO has falsified the contravention evidence and will probably be deservedly in line for dismissal. Something to cheer about. No-one on this forum should be in the same mould as that. -
It is disappointing to see unjustified knee-jerk reactions from some commendable well-meaning but misguided bloggers to breaking news about NMAG. CAGers may be assured that NMAG will NOT be 'putting the rights of motorists above anyone else'. Some 30 million long-suffering motorists ARE consumers whose lives and finances are being relentlessly blighted by variously incompetent and perverse authorities and by rogue companies - and increasingly so. NMAG advice and activities will NOT be in competition in any way with CAG or other motoring organisations which have their own specific motoring activities and interests but will work harmoniously with and complement all of them. Yes, CAG certainly does have great credibility. So will NMAG in time. So, to these initially irritated correspondents I say - please calm down and wait and see. Great oaks from little acorns grow (as CAG has certainly proved).
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
The Consumer Action Group
×
- Create New...
IPS spam blocked by CleanTalk.