Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK thanks for that.   I have no prior correspondence with EXCEL and therefore have not admitted being the driver. As it happens, I wasn't.   They have not responded to my initial request for documents and therefore I have no details on planning permission. I guess I'll assume and assert that they haven't in the absence of them providing proof to the contrary.   Meanwhile, I've had a letter from EXCEL offering a reduced payment. I will attach this.   I'm wondering whether I should ignore the letter or respond. I will not accept the offer.   
    • Thanks for all responses I’ve been looking at other threads and now feel totally confused as I’m scared of actually having to go to court as I have no idea how to defend this! Torn between just setting up a payment plan and not wanting them to win! 
    • Thanks so much!    1. on planning permission my WS says: The signs did not have planning permission under the Town and County planning.  I have an email stating there was no planning permission from the council. The signs do not fall under deemed consent.  * Their WS says they do not need planning permission by being an approved operator of the trade association, and it is not for the  county court to determine planning permission.   2. Excel are trying to say I’m dishonest.  Their WS states my defence appears to be cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCN's. Large portions are non sensical and irrelevant to the claim   This is Unacceptable as the defendant has signed a statement of truth whilst clearly not being the defendants knowledge    Q Any comments?      Their WS states that I alleged I received no correspondence, and the onus is on the driver to update DVLA. I did update DVLA, but I moved numerous times due to domestic abuse. This was in my set aside and part of why it was granted. Evidence was provided at that time. Q Is this going to come up again?    *Also they question how I would be able to comment on the signs if I’m not the driver of the vehicle, as she would not have first hand knowledge, therefore it is the claimants position that she is being disingenuous.    I state that photos will be provided in my bundle. I actually haven’t submitted any but I do also know somebody who had PCN from the same carpark,   He gave me all his evidence etc, Mr Booth and he won his case. I linked to the parking pranksters article on it.  Q So is it ok to use such websites and to use photos from someone else?    Thanks    I put Excel to strict proof that any contract can exist  *Their WS states it falls foul of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999(UTCCR 1999). Claims the regulations don't apply   This is the link to Mr Booth case who won on the signage  Also the PCN is completely blurred and illegible in their WS evidence  Is this another point?    I have his his email regarding planning consent, Mr Booth had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent     http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/excel-parking-v-booth.html?m=1   He had a number of lines of defence, but focussed on the poor signage in the car park. Excel Parking used BW Legal who hired a local solicitor to turn up. She wasn't that well prepared and had not bothered to bring printed copies of the case. When the Judge asked her to refer to defence photographs provided of poor signage she used her phone. Mr Booth admitted that he never bought a ticket - but this was because he never saw the signage signage in the first place and so no contract was entered into. Excel provided pictures of the signage, date stamped for August 2015, but the event was in March 2015. They also provided at the last minute a witness statement from the landowner stating he gave authority, date stamped September 2015. The PCN they sent in their Witness statement was a photocopy and completely blurred and illegible. Mr Booth's arguments were that; 1. Poor signage - there were "staff only" parking signs on the building wall next to where he parked - he questioned the claimant's right to sue someone parked against these bays 2. He questioned their authority to act on behalf of the landlord 3. He questioned whether the signage had planning consent. The Judge followed this through with Excel's representative: "Did they have a contract which said these bays were exempt or not exempt from Excel issuing tickets on the vehicles parked? As Excel had not bothered to supply a copy of the actual contract, the solicitor could not confirm either way. Regarding. planning consent, Mr Booth had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent, and that there was no planning application on file. The judge said if Mr Booth had only brought this point up he may have found differently. The judge clearly had doubts about the signs where any reasonable person would think the same and that the "staff only" signs would not lead them to think there was a requirement to buy a ticket. He took a recess for 10 mins then made his judgment. Claim refused - the parking signs cause confusion , and there was prof there was a contract which allowed the charges claimed. He went on to state that he was staggered that serial claims companies like Excel do not take a photo of the signs at the time of erection. Why do they wait until litigation to take photos. There was no evidence that the signs were there at all on the date.    
    • Not anymore now that the right have manipulated voters into voting for a conservative dictatorship.   All of what you've said is just another worrying aspect of what the future holds 
    • Just like all the rubbish spouted over the past 4 years, would, would, would.  What you really mean is COULD.    
  • Our picks

ciupas

Parking Behind Yellow Line

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3655 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Can you advise please...?

I have parked my van in front of gate of the office building or more precisely sideways on the driveway behind yellow line (there was another car parked right in front of the gate)

I thought that if you are parked behind yellow line its private property.

Anyway I’ve got ticket for the following contravention: 624 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of road other than carriageway.

Secondly on the two pictures attached to the PCN the registration mark is not fully visible I mean - one digit of the vehicle registration mark is not visible at all. On first picture you can see first half and on the other the second half of the registration plate - but without the middle digit.

Do you think I can appeal against the PCN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post the PCN up so we can take a look (obscure reg details ect). Also if you have pics of the location or let us know the location so we may be able to Google it.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you post the PCN up so we can take a look (obscure reg details ect). Also if you have pics of the location or let us know the location so we may be able to Google it.

 

 

Hi Thank you for reply.

 

The address is 26 Banner Street EC1, Islington.

Thats the entrance with Yelow sigh 'MAX. HEADROOM 2.4M'

 

I have also attached the PCN.

Thaks again.

SCAN0008.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking on the footpath within London is not permiteed except where signage says that it is. Bang to rights I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add that any traffic orders prohibiting parking normally extend to the rear of the adopted footway.

 

You probably need to check the limits of adoption.


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry JS,This is not bang to rights and you should,nt say it is until all avenues of appeal have been explored.

It seem to me that a procedural impropriety has occured, they state the you should pay the penalty must be paid WITHIN the period of 28 days, when the correct wording should be "paid before the end of the period of 28 days"


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does look as though you were all over the footway (Google street view here.)

 

Yep, I have to agree...even though I can't see much in the OP's thumbnail pic!


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry JS,This is not bang to rights and you should,nt say it is until all avenues of appeal have been explored.

It seem to me that a procedural impropriety has occured, they state the you should pay the penalty must be paid WITHIN the period of 28 days, when the correct wording should be "paid before the end of the period of 28 days"

 

I can't comment on this, but it's an interesting observation...how did you manage to read the thumbnail?!! :confused:

 

Such technicalities appear to be the only grounds for appeal in this case.


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By using the word "within" they are effectivly prolonging the time to pay or appeal to 29 days and as the Local authority have no right to do this, it renders the original PCN prejudical and unenforcable.

As in the ruling of "Al,s bar and resturant-v-wandsworth"

 

It really is suprising that some LA,s have not changed the wording by now


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how did you manage to read the thumbnail?!!
It's not easy, but it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By using the word "within" they are effectivly prolonging the time to pay or appeal to 29 days and as the Local authority have no right to do this, it renders the original PCN prejudical and unenforcable.

As in the ruling of "Al,s bar and resturant-v-wandsworth"

 

It really is suprising that some LA,s have not changed the wording by now

 

Whilst I am sure you know what you are saying, that makes no sense to me. How does the word 'within' extend 28 days to 29 days? Within my house means the same as before you reach the edge of my house surely?

 

Happy to hear clarification. I still think there is no grounds for appeal but am completely open to correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does the word 'within' extend 28 days to 29 days?
"Within" has been held to mean "excluding the first day" (Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth) so the PCN actually means "29 days beginning with the date of service".
It's not what you, BaldyBaldwin or I infer, but what the courts interpret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i am aware, "within" has been held (in Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth) excludes the first day mentioned. As such, it gives a time period of 29 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, not 28. This is non-compliant and prejudicial.

 

good point Real Name, but i believe the adjudicators have already interpreted on this one


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JimmySpangle, google als bar and resrurant-v-wandsworth and have a read through,it will explain the point better than i can ever do


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That case was upheld on the basis of a raft of non-compliance details. It was not simply the one phrase "Within the period of 28 days". I am not certain that an appeal would win, but it's worth a try. They might uphold an appeal simply to avert a possible PATAS case and subsequent costs should they lose and have to cancel a load of other PCNs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

sailor sam, JimmySpangle, BaldyBaldwin, WelshMam2009, My Real Name and Jamberson

 

 

It was very enlightening, I will appeal based on the Within the period of 28 days".

Will see... I will let you know how this case ended.

Regards Ciupas[/font]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Thank you for reply.

 

The address is 26 Banner Street EC1, Islington.

Thats the entrance with Yelow sigh 'MAX. HEADROOM 2.4M'

 

I have also attached the PCN.

Thaks again.

 

The above coments seem to be correct i'm afraid although I think the PCN may be flawed because you cannot see the whole VRM in either of the pics. Also I believe that there should not be a person in the foreground. But as for the offence itself, you seem to be parked ilegally.

 

Your only hope is to appeal aginst the actual PCN on the grounds it was not correctly issued.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) That is not a PCN its a notice to owner

b) There is no legal requirement for ANY photos let alone ones with the VRM.

c) 'within a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service' is not the same as 'within 28 days' as in Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth and those that quoted it should actually go back and read it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the PCN may be flawed because you cannot see the whole VRM in either of the pics. Also I believe that there should not be a person in the foreground.

 

The contents of photographs have no bearing on the validity of a PCN. There is no obligation to take photos, and they are not relied on. They are just a convenient way of clarifying matters if disputes arise. So, this would not affect the vaildity of this PCN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was parked 'illegally' it would be a police (criminal). Contravention (possibly, of the PCN is valid, the signs and lines compliant, the TRO valid and made validly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The contents of photographs have no bearing on the validity of a PCN. There is no obligation to take photos, and they are not relied on. They are just a convenient way of clarifying matters if disputes arise. So, this would not affect the vaildity of this PCN.

 

This is why i said 'I THINK the PCN MAY be flawed'. Obviously we are trying to 'clutch straws' on this one! But thanks for the clarification and also to G & M.

Edited by sailor sam
Signature still not posted

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he was parked 'illegally' it would be a police (criminal). Contravention (possibly, of the PCN is valid, the signs and lines compliant, the TRO valid and made validly)

 

What TRO or lines would footway parking require?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...