Jump to content

ericsbrother

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    16,692
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    7.1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

ericsbrother last won the day on April 9

ericsbrother had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,291 Excellent

About ericsbrother

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I sometimes travel by train. I pay a fare for my travel. If other people use the train they pay the same fare as I do as it is the prescribed fee and that wont change regardless of whether I have a carriage all to myself or am left standing due to overcrowding. If the council told you that the release fee was £60 but if no-one esle needed letting out it would treble to £180 to pay for the overall cost of runnig a service would you be happier? As they didnt make up the amount on the spur of the moment and it is advertised somewhere then it is what it is and if you dont agree to pay you come back the next day and collect your vehicle when the car park is open . By them you will have incurred a proper PCN
  2. they dont give a stuff about that, theyn have spent £20 on this and want to show a profit on their outlay and also show you that they have superpowers that allow them to order you about. It wasnt a penalty charge either read it properly. the misunderstanding of what it is and what DCA's are helps them earn money they dont deserve. To that end tell us who sent the letter you got so you dont misunderstand. Is it Gladstones letterhead or DR+? there is a big difference as to what you can make of it at some point in the future
  3. more inportantly it shows they knew the old signs were garbage otherwise they wouldnt have to change them. the comparison of images will help enormously
  4. the most importnat thing about a "no parking or stopping" sign is that it is prohibitive in nature. the only reason a parking co can charge you for anything is because you have entered into a contract with them and then either owe them money as a contractual agreement or as a result of a breach of contract. A sign saying "no parking" or "no stopping" isnt an offer of terms for parking and if you think about it if it was an offer of terms the only way of forming a contract would be to break it so unfair terms anyway. Waht you have considered so far is part of the whole story from yur point of view and if you follow that by explaining as you are how you eneter the land, what you see (or dont) and what happened to your vehicle then you end up withat least 4 reasons as to why no contract was formed and thus broken so you cnat owe them money for the same. as siad earlier, they know they are on to a hiding to nothing but wont admit they are wrong becasue they will never earn a penny ever again as they would know their demands are just plain fraud and will wait and see waht you have to say before chucking the towel in so they dont have to pay you your costs of whipping them in court. At the end of all this you will have a cast iron case for suing them if you have the stamina for a return match as they have obtained and processed your personal data without a reason for doing so. again they will whinge that they thought they were right but they have lost so many cases of this nature (esp at Liverpool airport) such a claim is laughable but again hope that you dont go after them. If you feel like winding them up go and park there agin after the court case and see if they dare issue you a NTK If they dont you will know that they are just chancers and have not a grain of integrity in them.
  5. If you add somehting do so by saying "i believe that" or "I do not belive that" so youdont lose your credibility as a witness by asserting somehting as being true if it later proves not to be so. for example, we always say that people write " the defendant does not belive the claimant has the requesitve planning permission" because they have checked with the council and know it hasnt been granted but if they wrote "the claimant doesnt have plaaning permission" and the judge doesnt understand the differences between the differenct sections of the advertising hoardings regs or that planning was obtained by the landowner then nothing else in that WS will be taken as being reliable. The first example shows the truth, yo dont believe somehting is so and the judge will be asking the claimant about that or you will get to cross examine on that point. now the thing about the use of mobiles is partially down to the wording of the signage as well as their permissions for obtaining different sorts of personal data so if you wnat to mention it you had better be damned sure that it wasnt flagged up in the parking contract and their ICO registration limits them to certain sorts of acquisition and processing of dat, for example number plates and not in your face images of shoppers. It is somehting that is better put to the ICO initially and then take their determinations to court with you if possible otherwise it is the " I do not believe they have the authority under the GDPR to gather and process this sort of personal data (and specify what quoting the GDPR)" It may be that s170 of the 2018 DPA applies and they have committed a criminal offence and that in itself voids any contract that could otherwise apply. the bod with the camera wont be the data controller but in an example we see here quite often, where a resident or shop assistnat is paid by the parking co for sending them pictures of miscreant parkers so they can be sent a ticket it is very likely that woild allpy
  6. understnad this, we like beating private parking co's because the majority of the cases we see here they have no right to demand a penny and they deserve a good thrahing. the big thing is we arent the ones who have to stand up in court and even if you end up with that task it will be only as an advisor to the person who got the demand so if they arent clued up on what is what it doesnt matter how brilliant we or you are they still have to perform. Not all cases where the pwerson refuses to play their game go to court but the parking co's kniow that 85% of any claims they issue will get paid so their lack of success with the other 15% is small beer financially and they would rather lie and bully the others into paying and risk a few losses than to admit they dont actually have a claim against anyone to begin with. Stick with it if the person you are helping wants to continue, if they dont then there is nothing anyone can do to force them. We dont feel like we have had our time wasted, on the contrary it is your time that has been wasted if you decide to give up and the person you are helping still wants to continueand that is why I say read more so you dotn have to keep going back to places to get more information. it may never be needed but better to have it and not need it than need it but not have it.
  7. depends on the organisation. are you saying the treasurer allowed someone else to take funds from an account who had no lawful excuse for doing so? Generally that would mean the treasurer is liable for the loss but it may be that all other officers of the organiation are equally liable for the debt if the treasurer cant pay it. as permission was granted by treasurer to the person who took the funds they may well not be liable at all. look up vicarious liability
  8. they have done this to avoid a summary trial and to reserve their right to claim costs if they win next time. If you had got your stuff posted in a week earlier you could have gone for that yesterday and they wouild have lost there and then because they were represented but had no paperwork in front of the judge in the requisite time. Now the same applies to you as well so they stand to lose quite a tidy sum as you will ahve 2 losts of lost earnings and travel etc. make sure that you get it all listed and this time you make sure your paperwork is sent in by the time stated on the hearing allocation letter but if that doesnt arrive you get it to court by the 10th may (copy to parking co)a nd them complain like hell if they fail to submit in time. We will help you with the wording of that as well if it comes to it but you wont know untill the 11th may
  9. yep, the .com site is great for case law but combine it with anything from the blog because when it comes to previous cases you want to chuck the kitchen sink in as well
  10. then we want to see pictures of all the new signs, both individually and en masse, esp if they crowd out the older ones. You will be using this against them at some point in the future
  11. simple defence based on observations about signage already made. there was no offer of a contract via the signage at the entrance to the site so there can be no cause for action because it is not possible to breach terms that do not exist. now all of the rest of the arguments about invitations to treat and the meaning fo the signs they are relying on to create a contractual condition can be added to your WS along with examples of other cases where the parking co has failed miserably for the same thing. they willargue that the other sigsn are the contract and they are right, it is just you dont ahve to accept their terms because you were invited in to aprk by the first sign that doesnt mention any charges etc. The example I give about invitations to treat is you are walking down the street an a clothes shop has a sign outside saying 50% off most items. Yoy go in, ask to try on a pair of trousers and are told they are not in the sale. now you cant force the shopkeeper to sell you the trousers for %0% off and they cant force you to by them just because you tried them on and nor can they charge you for standing in their shop if you dotn buy anything. the sign aoutside is an invitation to treat, to ake firther enquiries, to try stuff on and then negotiate. The contract is only formed when you say "i'll have those" and PAY for the item. Until that pint it is all up for offer and counter-offer. I the case of the parking signs, you can read them and say to yourself "I dont like those conditions so I wont be bound by them". It is only if you agree to them that they mean anything and that usually means shoving money in a ticket machine for a car park before you can be truly said to accept the terms and if the blurb on the ticket amchine is different to the signs then the ticket amchine terms rule.
  12. so DR+ are now the IAS in their own minds. What a bunch of self deluded oafs. If they werent so careless about who uses their name it would make a complaint to the IPC interesting but as they are all one and the same it only shows that they collude to make unlawful demands.
  13. when you went back to the site did you not think to take some photographs of the entrance to the land from the public highway, the signage visible at the entrance and any other signage that is within the land covered by the unilateral contract? This info is needed in every case and we make it clear that we need it so you had better to start reading a lot more threads and other background information such as reading the POFA to see if their NTK is compliant to create a keeper liability. now if you are not personally involved in this fight then please say what is your interest as playing chinese whispers slows things down enormously and means things get lost in translation so it is better thet the person who will be dealing with this is clued up on everything
  14. the next step wioll be yu will receive an allocation questionnaire from the courts service. This is self explanatory apart form the bit where is says about accepting mediation and you dont go for that as it is pointless but it wont be held against you by refusing it. The rest is about any dates you arent available and when you send it back the courts service will send it to your local County Court as they will have decided that small claims track is the most appropriate and that court will then contact you and the claimant with a hearing date and when you have to exchange your evidence bundles by, usually 14 days before the hearing. When you get the court date that is the tie to bash PE for not responding to your CPR 31.14 as you can say in all honesty that as they havent sent it so you dont believe they ahve the authority and that will force them to show thier contract with landowner or lose the claim without another word being said
  15. If I thought that telling Trading Standards was a worthwhile exercise I would have said write to them and not the ICO but as it is a data protection issue and very much in the world of the ICO said compain to them and that doesnt mean complain to your vicar or TS as they may well sympathise but cant do anything. We try to offer precise advice so spend your time learning about the issues rather than trying to spread this as thinly as possible but hoping someone will take up the cudgels and help you. Learn and then focus
×
×
  • Create New...