Jump to content

TheAntiTicket

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Actually that photo on Google Earth is an old photograph as the big store in the background is Homebase and that store has been closed for at least 2.5 years. Also that is the same car park as shown in the car going in/out but it is not the Purley Way Retail Park car park which is situated about 1.2km further back down that road. Purley Way is approx. 3miles long starting at Purley Cross right through to the Lombard roundabout in Mitcham Road Croydon. There are probably somewhere in the region of 40+ different car parks in the final 2 miles stretch of that road on both sides of the mainly dual carriageway and each car park has a totally unique and different name to each other.
  2. https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/2418 I do think he is right about the car park. This is the Purley Way Retail Park and the photos of the vehicle were taken in the other park.
  3. Having received a claim for a parking infringement in February 2020 my friend went to discover where the Purley Way Retail Park was. He told me what the 6 shops within this complex were and I then knew that I had never been inside these shops or the car park that is situated in front of these stores. Apparently, he had also spoken to a member of staff within one of the shops who confirmed that there was no time limit for parking in this car park. I then replied to this with a defence claim stating the following. "I have just received notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19." "Obviously, I can't remember where I was on that day but I have now visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of these six shops in that retail park. also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans" Perhaps I should have said that I had not parked there on that day in question 25/5/19 but that is what I meant. I received a reply to this defence claim dated 5/3/20 rejecting my defence. Mr then said he would help me in this matter and he returned to Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance and the signs available at the entrance. He then emailed them to BW on the 20/4/20 as shown above after a phone conversation with them. As requested, the 3 photos (numbered 1,2 and 3) of Purley Way Retail Park. The drive-in entrance is the only way into the units and although the 2 car parks either side of this unit only allow parking up to 3 hours, this car park has no parking restrictions which was confirmed to me by a member of staff about 2 months ago. I suppose it's possible that a year ago parking restrictions were different and if so, can you please let me know when they changed. He received confirmation that they had been passed on to their client and would get back with a reply. As he had not had a reply, he phoned on two more occasions but no reply had been received from TPS. Eventually he phoned on the 3/8/20 to be told that they now had a reply, after over 100 days and they would forward it on. On receiving that email, he immediately knew they were not photos of the Purley Way Retail Park (photo 4) as it was a much larger car park and he told that to BW. On the following day further photographs were sent of my vehicle in the same car park as the previous days offering which is not the Purley Way Retail Park. He was not completely sure what the car park was but on his return to this county he discovered they were photographs taken in the Lombard Retail Park (photo 5) which is situated over 3/4 mile (1.2km) from the Purley Way Retail Park. I have also enclosed photos of the same car park (numbered 6 and 7) in which you can clearly see the Matalan store and also the Range which replaced Homebase when it shut down. Bearing in mind that you have shown a photo of my vehicle in this car park it could not be in the Purley Way Retail Park at the same time and I confirm it was not ever left in the Purley Way Retail Park. I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.
  4. Shall I just post up his witness statement and just remove name and address and claim numbers
  5. The court has asked them to send the witness statement by email and it is going to be sent to the solicitor as well tomorrow. I don't think he has got time to show it to you he has only just finished it. Hopefully it will work and thank you for all your previous advice.
  6. I think I might have done something wrong. A letter has been received today informing of a small claims court hearing next Friday the 28th. It states information that is misleading as it is does not say what was originally stated by us. This has come from their solicitors and is their witness statement. I was expecting to receive a letter from the court so that we could connect to a video platform for the hearing. I think I have got it all wrong. We have not send a witness statement only the original defence statement in February 2020.
  7. The N157 form was received yesterday. It is a bit confusing because on the first page it is dated 18th August but at the end on page 2 it has a date of 20th July, the envelope it was posted in has a franking date of 4th September. Do we just now wait for the court to send a further letter giving the exact date of the hearing? Also is the directions numbered 6, 7 and 11 easily achievable or is this just standard protocol? The defendant will not wish to be there. N157.pdf
  8. I don't know why the earlier letters were not received. The car is registered at the home address. The person did spend a number of weeks in Italy last year visiting a sister who lives there. What is a dca?
  9. When the first letters dated 04/02/20 arrived in the same post asking for £204 the owner thought it might be a mistake. The BW Legal did not mention where or what offence had occurred and the court letter just said where the offence had occurred and the time it took place. (found out 3 weeks ago the time was the alleged time that the vehicle left a car park) to be fair, they didn't really know what the claim particulars were. my father just went to check where the Purley Way Retail Park was and the shops within it. Once they realised that the vehicle had never been to that car park they suspected a mistake that would be rectified once they completed the court claim with the exact facts. Unfortunately not, although I am surprised that BW Legal have twice offered to reduce the claim to firstly £180, and then £142. Is that usual or are they aware there may be a problem after viewing the photographs? You are right when the meditation letter arrived it was just ignored.
  10. This is the first time they knew of the alleged offence and after my father visited the Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance he helped the elderly friend to write the following which was then signed 20/02.2020 and returned by post to the court. Defence filed. "I have just received the enclosed notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19. Obviously I can't remember where I was on that day but I have visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of the six shops in that retail park. Also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans."
  11. Our Client has reconciled the images taken from the ANPR cameras (also enclosed), which show Vehicle entered the Car Park of Purely Way Retail Park at 10:17:56 and exited at 12:55:53. The total duration of the stay was 2 hours, 37 minutes which is in excess of the 2 hours maximum time permitted. Therefore, the PCN was issued correctly and our client’s position remains unchanged. Notwithstanding the above, our client is willing to resolve the matter amicably and would like to draw your attention to the without prejudice settlement proposal sent out to you. Should we not reach a settlement, we are instructed to proceed with our client claim with a view to obtain a County Court Judgment against you for the full balance owed, including costs and interest. We therefore look forward to hearing from you in the hope of concluding matters. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The above is the last email they sent on the 4th August. am I right in thinking if we don't contact BW Legal eventually they will either cancel this PCN or a letter will be sent from the County Court Hearing Centre to the owner of the vehicle arranging an allocation of a hearing. At that point we supply a defence statement proving the errors that they have made. Also is that hearing something that my father can attend as the representative of the vehicles owner?
  12. Have received n149A dated 9th March and then superseeded by an n271 dated 21st May (transfer to a Hearing Centre) The last contact made was 4th August 2020 by email.
  13. Name of the Claimant : Total Parking Solutions Limited Claimants Solicitors: BW Legal Date of issue – 04/02/2020 Date for AOS - Not done Date to submit Defence - Submitted defence by returning page 4 duly completed by hand, of the claim form to the court 20/2/20 and acknowledged by them 27/2/20. What is the claim for – £75-- monies due in respect of a PCN for a parking contravention which occurred on 25/05/2019 at 12:55:53 in the car park at Purley Way Retail Park Croydon. What is the value of the claim? £204 The POC says the following: 1. The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £75.10 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on 25/05/2019 at 12:55:53 in the car park at Purley Way Retail Park, CROYDON. in relation to a Kia xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 2. The defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN issue date to pay, but failed to do so. 3.Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. 4.The claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of 5.10 from 25/05/2019 to 03/02/2020 being an amount of £5.10. The claimant also claims £54.00 contractual cost as set out in the Terms and Conditions."
  14. The email below was sent to me on the 3rd August from BW Legal Further to our telephone conversation earlier today, please find enclosed photographs of the signage dated 24/01/2019. Our client has confirmed that installation of the signage was completed on 24/01/2019 when the photographs were taken. They have also confirmed the signage was in situ at the time of the contravention, and our client still operates with the same restrictions. The photographs you provided previously are photographs of the main billboard displaying the shops located in the retail park. The signage which details the terms and conditions of parking are displayed throughout the car park. As a result of the breach of the Terms and Conditions, the PCN was issued. I trust the above clarifies our client’s position and I look forward to hearing from you in the hope of resolving matters. This email below was sent to me on the 4th August 2020 from BW Legal We write further to the above matter and your telephone conversation with my colleague yesterday. Please find enclosed a copy of the PCN and subsequent reminder notices sent to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx isas requested. Our Client has reconciled the images taken from the ANPR cameras (also enclosed), which show Vehicle entered the Car Park of Purely Way Retail Park at 10:17:56 and exited at 12:55:53. The total duration of the stay was 2 hours, 37 minutes which is in excess of the 2 hours maximum time permitted. Therefore, the PCN was issued correctly and our client’s position remains unchanged. Notwithstanding the above, our client is willing to resolve the matter amicably and would like to draw your attention to the without prejudice settlement proposal sent out to you. Should we not reach a settlement, we are instructed to proceed with our client claim with a view to obtain a County Court Judgment against you for the full balance owed, including costs and interest. We therefore look forward to hearing from you in the hope of concluding matters. Since I emailed the photos of the Purley Way Retail Park to BW Legal on the 20th April the only correspondence from them was to sent 2 letters offering a discount on the original £204.10. The last one dated 9th June 2020 had a 30% discount requesting a payment of £142.87. The image below was dated 21st May 2020 which is a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings. No other contact has been made except when they were phoned on the 3rd August, as 15 weeks had elapsed, to see whether they had closed the matter. No witness statement has been issued. From the photos that they sent me I can see in one of their photos a store in the background which is not part of the Purley Way Retail Park so I know their photos are an entirely different car park. Their last email has not been replied to. Do we just now wait for them or the court to send a further letter?
×
×
  • Create New...