Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

q.q.qlp

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About q.q.qlp

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. All of the other signs are the same as the "sign close up" PDF I posted on April 8th. It does say £100 to pay if stay over time allowed. The front 2 are the only different ones.
  2. Hello, apologies for the delay. It wasn't possible to do this sooner I'm afraid. The lamp post has no council plaque or numbering unfortunately. The signs as shown in the PDF in my previous post are on both lamp posts and walls. I've attached a plan in this PDF to show where they are. The wall ones are approx 1.75m high from ground and lamp post ones about 2m. They are 60cm high x 45cm wide. The largest letters are 2cm high, the smallest 4mm high. In addition there are two different signs on entry into the Carpark. One on each side of the Carpark as shown in the photo attached. The "150 mins" sign on the left has "150" at 6.5cm high, "mins" at 5cm high and the writing about charges is 2cm high. You can see the 150 mins part on driving in but not the small print. The "ANPR" sign on the right has "ANPR" at 3cm high and text at 7mm high. It is totally illegible from a car when driving in (or from about 6m away on foot). They are both 196cm high and 60 x 45cm in size. All of these signs except the two entryway ones I just described are parallel to the flow of traffic and so would not be readable for anyone driving to park in the annexe. You are correct that the most relevant sign at the entrance to the annexe is at 45 degrees angle away from the direction of traffic and due to the one way traffic flow would not be visible to the driver on entry or exit whilst driving. It also appears to be for the main carpark it is facing or as you say the footpath and not for the seperate annexe, with seperate walled entrance road and no signs inside it. The annexe also has a seperate footpath to exit to highstreet shops (top right corner on plan) so you wouldn't walk back past any signs at all on exiting the Carpark on foot. The annexe very much seems to be a seperate Carpark for the highstreet/local area with no restrictions. The 45° sign is placed about 5m back from the entry road and is a massive 2.6m high from the footpath and so not clearly legible at all from car or footpath. HBparkingUpdate.pdf
  3. Sorry if they were blurry, originals weren't so must've been the convoluted conversion/resizing process. First time I've tried this. Here is a closeup of a sign. Good tip Re the lamppost! Will check that out as it will be very satisfying to remove the sign hehe. I completely agree that sign would be invisible for a driver entering and leaving that annex with or without a bush in the way. Also even if seen it looks like it applies to the main Carpark only and there are no additional signs in the annex (that's what I was trying to show with the photos of all 4 sides of the square annex). No proof of purchase from homebase now unfortunately but will still try this avenue if I continue to get hassled. signCloseUp.pdf
  4. Ok. Hope this has worked OK this time... Noticed I said it was on a Sunday. I was wrong, it was a Saturday. Today was one of the first sunny Sundays all year when I took the photos of the car park so would have been extra busy but still LOADS of spaces. HomebaseParkingPhotos.pdf
  5. For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement: 01/09/18 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]: 06/09/18 3 Date received: no way to tell now unfortunately 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]: It mentions the POFA 2012 but not schedule 4 specifically. 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? They provide their time stamped photos on the letter however I don't see how it can be clear where these photos actually are (no location info or signage visible for example, just a car and a bit of road). 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No, just ignored. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking COMPANY? G24 LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Homebase, 182 Old Shoreham Road, BN3 7EX For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under: They mention www.appealyourcharge.co.uk and the Independent Appeals Service www.theIAS.org There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here
  6. Hi, I did a search of my previous threads before I posted and this is a different one. Literally zero parking problems before these! It is good to know not to worry as they threaten court action with lots of extra costs. So shall I ignore again for now?
  7. Sorry, just re-tried and photos still failing to upload. Will try again asap but out of time now.
  8. Hi, Unfortunately I missed the letter when it first arrived and so the 14days to pay expires Mon 8th April. It is a solicitors letter threatening civil court proceedings for a parking charge currently £160 for exceeding a stay on a major retail chains parking lot. I ignored several of the other collections letters (from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith) but this one is from solicitors and quotes Beavis v Parking Eye 2015 and so seems more scary. The day of the "parking infraction" was a Sunday (store still open but massive carpark nearly empty so no possible loss of trade) and the driver drove into a small annex carpark (which seems seperate to use for the local shops, separated by a wall with a road entrance but no gates or barriers, and with no signage inside) and exited through a different pedestrian exit to the highstreet shops (so didn't walk back through the main carpark to see any signs, the only small one that could possibly pertain to this area was small and hidden by a bush so wouldn't have been seen in any case). I have a video, photos and a panoramic photo which is clearer but unable to upload video due to size and the rest get a -200 error. So what should our next actions be? Are they really going to take us to court? Any way to prevent this (eg with a strongly worded letter saying we are well informed and will defend vigorously?) Thanks for any and all help, really resent being bullied and extorted like this.
  9. Thanks for the quick replies. Sorry if the letter wasn't clear. I can't see "letter of claim" or "letter before claim" anywhere. What would you do in my situation? Short reply now or wait/ignore for now? I'm off on summer hols tomorrow so bad timing for them to hassle me again!
  10. Uhoh, I just received this letter from a solicitors today. Does this change things or is it still OK to ignore? Lots of threats about the repercussions of doing so. It seems like they're really pursuing this. They're looking to obtain a County Court Judgement. Do I need to get ready for court? Thanks again for any help.
×
×
  • Create New...