Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

Natalie64

London Parking Solutions/UCS (Ultimate Customer Solutions) PCN & ICS

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1337 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

here is the original letter, both sides.

 

I read the decision in the Parking Eye v Beavis case on the Independent Parking Committee site. It seems to me that I have to pay the charge, but do I have to pay additional cost and also, I have an email about all charges put on hold, while I am appealing. However, in the letter they are saying that I loose right to reduced charge if I appeal.

 

I read the decision in the Parking Eye v Beavis case on the Independent Parking Committee site. It seems to me that I have to pay the charge, but do I have to pay additional cost and also, I have an email about all charges put on hold, while I am appealing. However, in the letter they are saying that I loose right to reduced charge if I appeal.

 

Are there any implications to my case by the Supreme Court ruling above?

docs 1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natalie64, I'm a newbie and know a hell of a lot less that the experts here, so won't say too much.

 

However, until they come on, it seems to me that the parking companies are harping on & on about the Beavis decision in order to con/frighten motorists into paying. The Beavis case only concerned one type of car park, and one reason for appealing (genuine pre-estimate of loss). There are many other reasons for appealing. Don't panic, don't pay, wait for the experts who. it seems to me, have a brilliant record of beating the parking companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for moral support FTMDave. And thank you all of you guys, who are looking into my case. I think you are doing a great job and I only wish I knew of you sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beavis case which is being spouted by all and sundry was based on one site and can only apply to sites that bear the exact same principles of the case.

 

This does not apply to you.

 

If you want to take this further, complain to the IPC regarding the lack of response from the IAS but don't expect much sympathy as they are a law unto themselves.

 

The better bet (in my opinion) is to continue ignoring and only respond if it gets legal which I doubt.

 

While this company does take court action (44 in the last year) they are by no means guaranteed a win especially with this as they did not allow you any grace period to get the permit nor did the IAS respond to your appeal.

 

I assume you still go to the site so next time you go, (after obtaining the permit) photograph the signs. I bet they won't even be complaint


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the IPC say you should pay up,

the people who own that have a vested interest in doing so.

Daz says it washes whiter but fails to say whiter than what and who measures the whiteness.

 

The NTK you have received is not compliant with para 9 of the POFA so there is no keeper liability.

So waht does this mean to you?

 

 

Well, if you havent identified yourself as the driver (I expect that you did in your appeal)

then the parking co cant chase you for payment and you can send a letter to the parking co

if they bother you again telling them this and that any further contact will be treated as harassment.

 

However, if they know for certain you are the driver at the time as they cat send out the correct letter for the business

they are in the chances are they get other things wrong as well.

 

 

I bet that the signage is flawed and probably isnt an offer of a contract at all.

Photograph the signage and tell the exact location relative to where your car was parked

so if a parade of shops does each shop have its own sign or just one for a number of businesses?

 

 

How big is the sign,

how high up the wall, etc etc

 

 

.how do you access the land from the public highway,

do you cross a footway or is there a dropped kerb.

 

 

All these things help us and each little bit makes it easier to give a clearer opinion on the validity of the claim.

 

 

Despite the parking co's shouting about PEv Beavis very few breach of contract claims

are actually valid and the parking cos rely on bluster and misdirection to earn a crust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T

 

I assume you still go to the site so next time you go, (after obtaining the permit) photograph the signs. I bet they won't even be complaint

 

Actually, I'll be there tomorrow. So will post the picture late evening or on Thursday.

 

 

So, they took 44 people to court? Is there any info about the outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, they took 44 people to court? Is there any info about the outcome?

 

Nope but the site I got the info from showed that they got a 47% default win rate. This means that the respondent didn't erm, respond as for the other 53%, No details but I would assume the majority of these were won by the motorist.

 

You have to remember that in the small claims court, there are fixed costs for doing this and if a company pays for a lawyer to attend, they will lose money as they cannot get all his fee back.

 

For example, the parking charge is £100, the court fee is approx £25 and the solicitor fee is approx £50 £175 is the maximum they could claim even though the solicitor would charge them a minimum of £300 to attend. With such a small company, they would soon go out of business by litigating all the time.

 

And don't forget, taking you to court would be very silly due to them not following the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the guidance from the IPC.

 

When you visit tomorrow, try to find out the landowners details and make a complaint to them as well.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys,

 

Today for the first time I received an answer from iAS, but it's very confusing.

 

I attach their letter, which does not make any sense to me

as its states that they are unable to consider my appeal as appeal was refused

- what does this means?

 

 

If operator refused that they are not looking into it?

Also there is something about that this decision is not legal.

So what exactly is this?

 

I will greatly appreciate if somebody will find time to look at their letter and tell me how should I read it.

 

Frankly, I am considering sending them a cheque for £60,

but I want to make clear that I do not agree with them,

but paying them just to go away.

 

 

I will not pay any additional £60.00, because today is the first day I am notified about their decision.

 

 

Also I will not pay £100.00 as all charges must be put on hold while the matter is under consideration.

I even have an email from the operator confirming that.

 

Can anybody help me with the letter I send to them?

apeal.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natalie, others more knowledgeable than me will be on soon, but it seems to me the letter is the usual rubbish that the IAS send out. You were never going to win with them, they're not independent at all, they're just stooges of the parking companies.

 

For goodness' sake don't pay them anything!

 

Silverfox above has pointed out that LPS haven't bothered to go through the proper legal process and would lose in court, if they were stupid enough to issue court proceedings.

 

Keep calm and the experts will reply to you soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected, the adjudicator has not followed the correct procedures. Even if you had to display the visitors permit, you would have to enter the building to get it so the car would have been parked and secured before you did so. The adjudicator has not taken that into account and dismissed the appeal.

 

As this is as far as they and you can go, I suggest ignoring any further mailings from them apart from a Letter Before Action or court papers.

 

It has been spotted on many occasions that the IAS are not impartial and they will generally come down on the side of the operator. They state they used legally trained people but trained in what? It certainly isn't anything to do with parking issues and of course, Gladstones appoint the adjudicator so there must be some self interest in them using people are going to be biased.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically they have considered your appeal and you have lost. However, there appears to be no evidence offerd by the parking co or the adjudicator what exactly the terms aof parking were nor which one you broke and how, they are relying on you saying you know you were wrong!

So, a picture of the signage please and we can take it from there. In the meanwhile do not correspond with either the IAS or the parking co and that way you cannot drop yourself it it any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are sign boards all around place stating that parking permits must be displayed and hence the PCN for parking without permit. That's that.

I made a mistake by writing to them and explaining that I had permission to park and that my visit was very short. Basically, I think I tripped myself. Technically, because visitor's permit is not individual and has to be obtained and returned on the day, the car will be without permit at some point. But I think, because I wrote to them prior with my honest explanation believing that they could accept it or adjudicator would, now they will not accept that I had had a visitor permit on that particular day.

Therefore, I think I'll pay £60.00. I cannot afford to go to court.

Could anyone say, what should I write when I make £60.00 payment instead of £160.00 or just make payment without any explanations?

The picture of the sign is enclosed.

54ae859b-2c16-4f96-833b-a931fdb10d91.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically they have considered your appeal and you have lost. However, there appears to be no evidence offerd by the parking co or the adjudicator what exactly the terms aof parking were nor which one you broke and how, they are relying on you saying you know you were wrong!

So, a picture of the signage please and we can take it from there. In the meanwhile do not correspond with either the IAS or the parking co and that way you cannot drop yourself it it any further.

 

whose signature? sorry, but I am not sure what you are referring to :???:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therefore, I think I'll pay £60.00. I cannot afford to go to court.

 

Why? It's highly unlikely they'll take you to court, and if they did they'd lose. Plus, before taking you to court they have to send you a letter before action which you haven't yet received (and probably never will). You're light years away from court action.

 

Try to think of the thing legally.

 

If I knew your address, I could now send you a letter saying I've written a few posts on your thread and I want £100. I could add that I'm a reasonable person and you can appeal to my next-door neighbour, who is a good friend of mine.

 

In my job I sometimes collaborate with a graphic design company. I could get them to send you a scary letter with symbols of court buildings and the scales of justice, and put in references to COURT and to BAILIFFS and to being HUNG DRAWN & QUARTERED.

 

How much would you pay me? Not a red cent I hope!

 

My claim for the £100 is obviously absurd. But so is their's. They're just trying to con you. Upthread other posters have mentioned several ways they haven't bothered to follow the legal procedure and would be humiliated in court, if they were stupid enough to start court action, which they won't. Legally you're in the right. They're not. It's them who are on the hiding to nothing. Not you.

 

Silverfox has advised ignoring their rubbish unless you get the letter before action. Superb advice.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are sign boards all around place stating that parking permits must be displayed and hence the PCN for parking without permit. That's that.

I made a mistake by writing to them and explaining that I had permission to park and that my visit was very short. Basically, I think I tripped myself. Technically, because visitor's permit is not individual and has to be obtained and returned on the day, the car will be without permit at some point. But I think, because I wrote to them prior with my honest explanation believing that they could accept it or adjudicator would, now they will not accept that I had had a visitor permit on that particular day.

Therefore, I think I'll pay £60.00. I cannot afford to go to court.

Could anyone say, what should I write when I make £60.00 payment instead of £160.00 or just make payment without any explanations?

The picture of the sign is enclosed.

 

You came here asking for advice on how to deal with this demand for money from imo, [problem]mers.

 

[EDIT. can't be bothered. ]

 

 

Now you want us to write something along the lines of ' here is £60 , please take it. '

 

No. If you want to pay then pay.

 

 

The business that owns/rents the space wanted you to park in it . They told the PPC this. You had the authority to park there and that is

 

all you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You came here asking for advice on how to deal with this demand for money from imo, [problem]mers.

 

[EDIT. can't be bothered. ]

 

 

Now you want us to write something along the lines of ' here is £60 , please take it. '

 

No. If you want to pay then pay.

 

 

The business that owns/rents the space wanted you to park in it . They told the PPC this. You had the authority to park there and that is

 

all you need.

 

The business[solicitor/notary], who I visited gave me permission to park and even wrote an email to the operator stating that I am "their associate and he ask them to be sympathetic". Unfortunately I do not have a copy of his email and now suspect that he will not defend me. Because when I saw him on February, 10th he told me to pay £160.00 . He said that he made a mistake by allowing me to park there and now the situation is a bit awkward, as he has some business with somebody called S. , because then he went on that S. told him that London Parking Solutions his associates and now it's out of his hands, but if I pay £160.00 he will pay me back something. I actually was very unimpressed and told him that I disagree, so the reply was " let's not talk about it anymore. I wasted enough time on this". This is why I am not sure about anything anymore and although he [the solicitor/notary] previously c/c me automatic reply from LPS to show that he wrote to them, I really cannot fend them without his support. And my understanding is that he values S. business more then mine.

 

Here I post the email reply from LPS send to me on 8/02/16 in response that I never received a decision from IAS.

 

Thank you for your email. the contents of which we note.

 

As you have appeal to the IAS, they would have informed you on the 13/01/16 about the decision made on your appeal. Unfortunately as the appeal was rejected and we did not hear anything back from yourself, we then sent out a letter to yourself with admin fees added to the outstanding balance.

 

Any issues you may have about not receiving a rejection letter back from the IAS would need to be taken up with them. We are unable to lower the amount of 160.00 at this current stage, Please contact the IAS as soon as possible as a GOGW we have placed the account on a 3 day hold to allow you time to make the necessary contact.

 

Kind Regards

Lumane Ajar

Parking Solutions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Try to think of the thing legally.

 

If I knew your address, I could now send you a letter saying I've written a few posts on your thread and I want £100. I could add that I'm a reasonable person and you can appeal to my next-door neighbour, who is a good friend of mine.

 

In my job I sometimes collaborate with a graphic design company. I could get them to send you a scary letter with symbols of court buildings and the scales of justice, and put in references to COURT and to BAILIFFS and to being HUNG DRAWN & QUARTERED.

 

How much would you pay me? Not a red cent I hope!

 

My claim for the £100 is obviously absurd. But so is their's. They're just trying to con you. Upthread other posters have mentioned several ways they haven't bothered to follow the legal procedure and would be humiliated in court, if they were stupid enough to start court action, which they won't. Legally you're in the right. They're not. It's them who are on the hiding to nothing. Not you.

.

 

It's exactly how I feel about this matter, but if you were acting in professional capacity and I knew about your charges, so by sending me an invoice you will be within your rights, no? The rest is spot on.

I've decided to pay initial fee because I am sure now that my solicitor will not get involved or confirm anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The business[solicitor/notary], who I visited gave me permission to park and even wrote an email to the operator stating that I am "their associate and he ask them to be sympathetic". Unfortunately I do not have a copy of his email and now suspect that he will not defend me. Because when I saw him on February, 10th he told me to pay £160.00 . He said that he made a mistake by allowing me to park there and now the situation is a bit awkward, as he has some business with somebody called S. , because then he went on that S. told him that London Parking Solutions his associates and now it's out of his hands, but if I pay £160.00 he will pay me back something. I actually was very unimpressed and told him that I disagree, so the reply was " let's not talk about it anymore. I wasted enough time on this". This is why I am not sure about anything anymore and although he [the solicitor/notary] previously c/c me automatic reply from LPS to show that he wrote to them, I really cannot fend them without his support. And my understanding is that he values S. business more then mine.

 

Here I post the email reply from LPS send to me on 8/02/16 in response that I never received a decision from IAS.

 

Thank you for your email. the contents of which we note.

 

As you have appeal to the IAS, they would have informed you on the 13/01/16 about the decision made on your appeal. Unfortunately as the appeal was rejected and we did not hear anything back from yourself, we then sent out a letter to yourself with admin fees added to the outstanding balance.

 

Any issues you may have about not receiving a rejection letter back from the IAS would need to be taken up with them. We are unable to lower the amount of 160.00 at this current stage, Please contact the IAS as soon as possible as a GOGW we have placed the account on a 3 day hold to allow you time to make the necessary contact.

 

Kind Regards

Lumane Ajar

Parking Solutions

 

You now don't have the email from the solicitor? Really?

 

if you pay some of what they want, then all they will do is hound you and try and make you pay the rest....

 

The signage you posted up, although you have made it difficult to read, states permit holders only. So you can only park there with a permit and you didn't have one. Therefore you were a trespasser and it is only the landowner who can take you to court to claim damages for that.

 

The way this thread has gone, then I expect you will now tell us how ill you/a family member is, and how much stress it is causing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natalie, I understand your wavering on this issue. IF LPS did take court action, it is my opinion they would lose for the following reasons.

 

1 Inadequate signage. In the picture you uploaded, I couldn't see where the charge was placed. As it is an important term, this should have been highlighted and in bigger letters.

 

2 No grace period. You have to enter to get a permit. The fact you didn't need one on this occasion is neither here nor there. On the assumption you parked for around 5 minutes and got the ticket, it would have still taken you the same amount of time to get a permit. That is the whole point of visitors permits.

 

3 Genuine pre estimate of loss. While the Beavis case ruled on this, that will not apply to this case as you did have permission to park as you have done so previously. You have caused no loss to them at all.

4 Admin fees. This extra £60 for sending out another letter. What a money making scheme that is.

 

Now, if they did go to court and lost, you can claim your capped costs. Even if you lost, the small claims court is set up so that they company can only claim fixed costs. It would cost them more to take action than they could ever get back.

 

I also don't believe that LPS will accept the lower figure. It is all or nothing with them.

 

Take a few steps back from this and look at it with fresh eyes. These companies prey on the unknowing and instil fear by making themselves look bigger than they really are.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You now don't have the email from the solicitor? Really?

 

if you pay some of what they want, then all they will do is hound you and try and make you pay the rest....

 

The signage you posted up, although you have made it difficult to read, states permit holders only. So you can only park there with a permit and you didn't have one. Therefore you were a trespasser and it is only the landowner who can take you to court to claim damages for that.

 

The way this thread has gone, then I expect you will now tell us how ill you/a family member is, and how much stress it is causing...

 

Sorry. I did not mean to frustrate you so much. The solicitor did not c/c his email to the operator to me, by c/c their automatic reply. Do you want me to send you those emails? I cannot post it online, but can email them to you. I do not lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather you email them to a site team member rather than a regular user. Armadillo is a respected user but is not bound by the Data Protection Act whereas the site team are.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Silverfox. This is what I wanted to hear. I already made a few mistakes by writing to them in the first place.

I agree I have to take a few steps back and keep all information and suggestions kindly posted by other users in mind until I will be taken to court. Hopefully, it would not come to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rather you email them to a site team member rather than a regular user. Armadillo is a respected user but is not bound by the Data Protection Act whereas the site team are.

 

okay. I'll check spam folder, but I am sure he never c/c me his email, just c/c their reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rather you email them to a site team member rather than a regular user. Armadillo is a respected user but is not bound by the Data Protection Act whereas the site team are.

 

Yep, I don't want them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again you seem to be rushing things and not reading carefully what people are saying.

 

I have read the sign you posted up and must say that it is not a contract as it is contradictory

and doesnt spell out its core terms so is unenforceable and therefore worthless to the parking co

as a document that can be relied on in court.

 

So, what to do- pay them something?

 

 

No, that would mean that you agree to the offer and thus accept the sign as being a contract

and thus you would then owe the amount they are claiming, you dont get to choose how much.

 

For the moment the best thing to do is NOTHING and wait for them to make the next move.

They currently have you down as someone who is panicked into paying so they are waiting for your payment.

 

 

When it doesnt come they will threaten to kill your first born, a plague of locusts etc,

anything to get you to pay other than tell the truth.

 

 

When you get the next begging letter from them post it up and we will suggest a suitable resposnse.

 

 

there are a lot of ways of defeating these spurious claims

and we dont want to use all of them when one will usually suffice.

 

Now do something to help yourself

_ stop writing to these people as you agreed to do several days ago.

 

 

Our job will be much easier if we have a static target to shoot at.

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...