Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Also.... here is the answer from Breckland Council for PP questions asked. BFOI 007352 BDC FOI Response.docx
  2. Gents, A question, the contract that NTC supposedly has with Connaught Hall (attached) details that they will comply with the BPA Code of Practice. However, NTC notified me that this is not the case. Can this be followed up with the BPA at all? I mentioned this in the country court also but this was ignored too. NTC Con Hall Contract.pdf
  3. all clear..... thank you.. I will start this process now. Much appreciated to all. I will keep you updated.
  4. I tend to agree with your comments as he said he was very familiar with NTC as soon as the Claimant's advocate started talking. I quoted the requirements of the BPA code of conduct that stipulate that detail the signage and the requirements of this...I quoted both BPA and IPC CoP fro Grace Periods. The 3 differing entities made him think for a minute especially as the entity that has the contract with the Hall was disolved in 2013 and therefore unable to enter into a contract...all were disregarded. He was happy with the signage as "I know the car park very well". I explained that the signage must be clear for people who not know the car park and in any event must comply with the the CoP's and legislative requirements. "I am happy with the signage is sufficient"! and so it went on. Can his ruling be appealed even though he refused the right to appeal?
  5. Guys, The Judge today ruled in favour of the Claimant (NTC) however a max of the PCN and court fee (£25). However, during the hearing he agreed that the Grace Period should be 10 minutes but disputed the fact that I had returned to the car within 10 minutes. He said because I hadn't brought evidence from the Dr Surgery that I was collecting a prescription, the PCN was still valid. He deemed that there was adequate signage despite the fact the signs do not mention the Dr Surgery as he knew the car park very well. He deemed that the 3 different companies named on the PCN, the Court Claim form and the contract with Connaught Hall were the same company despite one company being dissolved in 2013 and therefore to legally enter into a contract with Connaught Hall in 2017. I mentioned the non compliance with the IPC Code of Conduct and the BPA Code of Conduct, especially around signage and planning permission. The judge said that there was no evidence to suggest that the Claimant hadn't applied for planning permission and therefore disregarded these items. I requested an appeal on all of the above which he refused. Is it me or is this slightly strange that a judge can disregard all of the above?
  6. Guys, I have my court case tomorrow (1st July) and I have gone through the bundle supplied by the Claimant (NTC). They provided a limited version of the supposed contract with the Hall but the Company who holds that contract has a different registered address that the one that issues tickets. This company was disolved in 2013 so no longer exists and therefore their contract which is supposedly dated for 03/01/2017 is not valid. The company that issues tickets is not a registered company on Companies House. The County Court Claim form also detailed a different address and is therefore a different entity that the NTC that issued the PCN. There is also no evidence of planning permission for the signs etc.
  7. ericsbrother, that is unbelievable. How on earth does something like this happen!? Anyway, I will use the signage planning permission issue. I haven't found out if they have paid the court fee yet so this still may not happen. Thanks again.
  8. Thank you. I have the codes of practice and all of that with regards to grace periods. My back up however is that NTC may not actually be allowed to issue tickets. There are doubts with regards to whether there was a contract in place, if there was who was that with coupled with the fact that they have installed the signs and machines with no planning permission. However i am still trying to find out what legislation covers the planning permission requirement.
  9. Yes I have read quiet a bit but its hard to follow when trying to determine if these are compulsory when it comes to information and disclosure of documentation.
  10. I have called and got no answer but I will keep trying. Court date is 1st July. For the letter i sent under CPR 31:14 where the solicitors haven't replied, are they legally required to reply to this?
  11. The Claimant must pay the fee by 1600 03/06/19. I need to submit all documents fourteen days before the hearing.
  12. Good day Everyone, I now have a date for this case in Norwich country court. The Claimant (NTC) have not replied to my letter detailed in comment #5 which requests information from the Claimant. They have sent a letter reiterating that I was in violation of their terms and conditions. My question is....what is the legislation that requires planing permission for the signs and machines to be installed? I will try and get information from the Hall regarding previous violations of the Claimant in the car park. Thanks
  13. Wow......how on earth have you managed to get all of this!?! When I parked there there was no camera but I have no idea when there was one there previously.
  14. ericsbrother thank you. I will ask the Doctors as suggested. Thank you so much, much appreciated.
  • Create New...