Jump to content

mechsman

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    51
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About mechsman

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Just had the next letter in the chain from ukcps titled "notification letter", informing me that 28 days have elapsed since they last wrote, and under schedule 4 of pofa I am liable for their invoice. I will continue to ignore unless someone says otherwise.
  2. Dx, thanks again. Just wanted to check as I was reading elsewhere that there was a school of thought that said you should engage with the appeals process to show willing. I will ignore the threatograms for now then.
  3. Thanks dx. Is the standard advice still to ignore until proper Lba or actual court papers turn up?
  4. So here we go again at Abbeywood retail park. For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 21/11/2018 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 28/11/2018 3 Date received 30/11/2018 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] No, but says ANPR - made under POFA 2012 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, see attachments 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] No 7 Who is the parking company? UKCPS 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Abbeywood Retail park (MacDonalds section), Bristol For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under? IAS What's the standard advice for these nowadays please? Thanks in advance ticket 1 redacted.pdf
  5. So, just to update everyone, nothing further received so far from any of the companies who claim to be involved in this. Last deadline expired 18/04/18. How long do they get to chase this just out of interest?
  6. Hmm. Okey doke, I will keep an eye out for the next one after the 18th then, as that's when their latest "deadline" expires.
  7. That's what I thought. Out of interest, changed from other examples of this letter that you've seen, or just from the previous letter in this chain?
  8. Dragonfly, you were correct, I have received another DR+ (in drag) letter. See attached. Again, I will ignore unless advised otherwise. Many thanks [ letter 8 redacted.pdf
  9. Dragonfly, okey dokey, I will keep an eye out then. Just a quick one, but SRA in this context stands for?
  10. Thanks for all of the advice so far Caggers. I have another letter in the threatogram chain. This one appears to be DRP in drag as Zenith collections. I will ignore again. I wonder if they will actually bother with court or if that will be it now. Either way, redacted version attached for laughs. letter 7 redacted.pdf
  11. as it was posted at around the same time as mine. Pictures of the signage are in the attachments in post 5. ah250: I have been posting scans of the letter chain I have received. Assuming you have ignored everything so far, I assume that your letter chain is the same as mine?
  12. Hypothetically, if the keeper were driving, would they have to reveal this to the judge? I would presume the answer would be yes, if asked, but no otherwise? If the keeper were driving at the time, I would therefore assume that it would NOT be wise to highlight the above, even if defending as keeper?
  13. So if defending as keeper, this would be something to highlight to the judge as being a crock of the proverbial then?
  14. Ahhhh, righto. I don't live a million miles from there either. You're welcome to come if they actually try it. Non compliant on two counts? 1. not titled correctly and 2. no response pack?
×
×
  • Create New...