Jump to content

Stevie_T

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Stevie_T

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks, but I posted it today. It had to go. I’m not asking for favoritism in point 1 but apologizing in advance for any procedural mis-steps. I noticed that the claimant started with a brief introduction in the first person so I did the same.
  2. I'm now up to the seventh draft and have made various tweaks and improvements taking on board advice and suggestions. I'm hoping to post this Thurs latest. I will paste below and attach the exhibits pages ==================== Introduction 1. I am a private citizen and I have no knowledge or experience of court procedures and protocols. I have done some research and reading. Hopefully I am able to present my position as well a layman is able. 2. I will refer to various images and documents that can be found appended to these pages under Exhibit
  3. 23. The bays to which the claimant refers do not meet any of the requirements that constitute a properly laid out disabled bay. There is a faded washed out squiggle as the picture dated January 3rd 2019 shows. The supposed disabled bays can be seen in images in Exhibit A2. 24. The parking bays purported to be “disabled” fall short of requirements and recommendations on all counts. The defendant has consulted various government portals INCLUDING: Inclusive Mobility published by DfT, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 & The British Parking Assoc
  4. Their bays are 3m reccomened are 3.6m I've found other specs that they don't meet these are not disabled parking bays at all
  5. I found this https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library 2016/Bay_Sizes_-_Jul_2016.pdf specifications for disabled spaces but what is the definitive reference to quote for specs.
  6. Thanks I'll add that. If you get a chance can you go point 2 and give me a hand with the POFA stuff. I've read up on it but I'm struggling to understand. I'm not sure how to make my point. To my mind I was never explicitly asked to name the driver and never declined to name them.
  7. I was over there last week taking stock.I guess I should have done that. I might get a chance later today or tomorrow.
  8. I've been at this all day and I'm going crosseyed I'm going to paste what I have so far and attach Exhibits A1 and A2. Still to come is Exhibit A3 which is the bits of previous judgements I've found. I think I need to post this Weds - Thurs latest ===================== 1. The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. On [ DATE] the claimant issued a charge notice claiming that the vehicle was parked in a manner that breached a unilateral contract offered by way of signage at the car park situated at Middlesbrough Leisure Park.
  9. On the Middlesbrough Council portal a search for "Excel" - "Excel Parking Services" - "Excel Parking Services Ltd" produced no results. A search for "The Leisure Fund Ltd" brought up a request for planning permission for a building extension.
  10. I've done some work to the section I'll paste below. (obviously the section numbers will change) These points are all supported by EXHIBIT A1 which I will attach here. ENTRANCE TO CAR PARK 1. On [DATE] the defendant visited Pizza Hut with a party of friends. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle travelled along North Ormesby Road, turned right onto Woodside Street and sharp left into the parking area in front of Pizza Hut. This is the most obvious and direct route to Pizza Hut. See Exhibit A1 for details. 2. There w
  11. perhaps this is the point at which I I should intruduce the NTK and POFA arguments suggested by ericsbrother
  12. I was planning to introduce Eric’sbrother stuff next but see now that perhaps I should introduce the NTK first and then get into my specifics of sinage
×
×
  • Create New...