Jump to content


Park with ease (white moss, rydal)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2667 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The date of infringement is 30th of August

The date on the NTK is tuesday 20th September

 

The date received was 28th September

It doesn't mention sched 4 of the protection of freedoms act

but it mentions the road vehicles (reg and liscensing) reg 2002

 

There is no photo evidence or any proof whatsoever except two times outlined for entry and exit

 

I haven't appealed yet but I am planning on doing so

 

The parking company is park with ease and they are associated with the IAS for appeals

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a look around,

they do seem to be working to a certain ''code''

but not many of the threads detail a conclusion,

 

 

any help with regards to an appeal would be greatly appreciated,

 

 

I have photos from a previous instance with this car park showing my ref not being recognised,

has to be card payments and the card machine being off aswell so they've been doing it for a while

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

As with all ANPR tickets, under the rules of PoFA they must contact the keeper within 14 days. Unfortunately PWE and all other members of the IPC do not follow PoFA and make the assumption that the keeper is also the driver, even if it wasn't. The only way they can get anything from you is to take court action and prove to the court that on the balance of probabilities, you were also the river.

 

You could appeal and they will reject you and then appeal to the IAS who will also reject you as the IPC, the IAS and Gladstones Solicitors are all the same people. Conflict of interest much??

 

The next question is did you pay to park? Did you keep any receipts. I think I am right in thinking that the machines at White Moss require a number plate to be inputted into the machine. If it accepted your money, there would be a record.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

the machines at this site are not fit for purpose and PWE have admitted that in a previous claim.

 

 

Read the parking pranksters blog and you will hopefully have an answer if they get as far as a lba.

 

 

Above all, dont panic,

there are other reasons why any claim will fail,

keeper liability being one as long as you ahvent told them that you were driving.

 

Advice?

Dont appeal,

you will probably get some threatograms but nothing more.

 

 

Appeal and you may well drop yourself in it.,

let them do the running and making the errors at their own expense

Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed some advice from another forum who suggested complaining to the land owner which I did,

 

 

after my initial complaint they asked for my charge ref number and my name so they can investigate for me,

I sent that unwittingly

 

 

afterwards received a very brief email saying they were forwarding all my details to the parking agent,

bearing in mind I complained about the machines not working for me in my initial complaint

I think I have been tricked into admitting liability by the land owner, what do you think?

 

The initial parking charge was addressed to my partner as the cars in her name

but I was the one who was driving and tomorrow is the last date in which to start an appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake District National Parks should be making PWE aware that they are causing problems by not linking their cameras to the ticket machines. They are designed to fail the car owner.

 

I don't see how by complaining to LDNP can be admission of being the driver. You could easily have been acting for the driver or even the keeper.

 

Although PWE allow people to pay online, this is not suitable for everyone. I have seen a sign from last year that fails every test. The parking charge is hidden in the small print as well as a price rise of 5p per 20 minutes but have failed to update the example charges. Ooops!!

 

The fact of the matter is that LDNP should have independently investigated your complaint, not pass it on to the subject of the complaint. They are abdicating responsibility.

 

Sometime today, I shall find some names of directors

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

On this page from LDNP, there is a list of members and it seems they all have email addresses too. :madgrin:

 

http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/aboutus/members

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are just fed up with people asking them the same things all the time. They dont want to admit they chose a bunch of useless wazzocks to run their car parks for them.

I've just had a reply off the land owner suggesting I follow the appeals process with park with ease and they have nothing to do with the management, I'm starting to think they are following this thread
Link to post
Share on other sites

Landowner can sue for trespass to recover any losses created by that trespass, that would be damage to land, loss of income from parking space etc. A parking co cannot sue for trespass but the Beavis decision means that they no longer have to show a schedule of loss caused by a breach of contract ( you would normally seek to recover those losses, not make a profit as that is not what tort is about) but it is now decided that consumer contracts are the same as commercial contracts and penalty charges can be used as long as those charges are "not unconscionable".

If a parking co is using para 9 then it must include evidence that the driver would become aware of the parking charge rose and THE OTHER FACTS....that means they must show some evidence such as a photograph. They cant send out an NTK with just a demand and then produce a photograph of a car parked over a line, for example at a subsequent appeal or court hearing, it has to be sent with the NTK or they have failed to comply with para 9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, that's something else they've gifted me then, they're an IPC lot I must add by the way, if that makes a difference. I notice for things such as signage the code of practice is cleverly written and doesn't mention size of fonts or anything too technical

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that the outcomes of previous cases where the court has found in favour of the defendant (i.e. YOU) can be presented as reasons why this claim should not be successful either.

Sadly, case law in the County Court does not become legally binding (as it does in higher courts, such as the Appeal Court (Civil Division), High Court or the Supreme Court), but judges tend not to like going against precedent. If one or other party wanted to appeal in the event of losing, they would take it to the higher court, where it would become binding. Hence the reason why the Parking Eye vs Beavis case is so important (bearing in mind that that ruling applied to a specific set of circumstances, and is not as universally applicable to any private parking dispute as the parking co's would have you believe).

 

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that the outcomes of previous cases where the court has found in favour of the defendant (i.e. YOU) can be presented as reasons why this claim should not be successful either.

Sadly, case law in the County Court does not become legally binding (as it does in higher courts, such as the Appeal Court (Civil Division), High Court or the Supreme Court), but judges tend not to like going against precedent. If one or other party wanted to appeal in the event of losing, they would take it to the higher court, where it would become binding. Hence the reason why the Parking Eye vs Beavis case is so important (bearing in mind that that ruling applied to a specific set of circumstances, and is not as universally applicable to any private parking dispute as the parking co's would have you believe).

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

WOT E SAID :lol:

 

PWE do not do court that often as they are a small company (compared with some others) and the costs of taking action will outweigh the potential income from a 'possible' win. (no guarantee of that)

For them to take court action against you for the charge, they would get less than £200 yet the costs would be at least £300+. Doesn't make sense does it?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the BMPA website PWE have taken court action 22 times this year and only 10 in the whole of 2015 so they don't do court that often. The problem with these figures are that they are just cases and no outcome is known.

Compare PWE with Parking Eye (NOT a fair comparison) and PE have taken nearly 1200 cases to court so far this year.

 

Any court action that happens should be fully defended as otherwise they would get a judgement in default.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've received a second letter today saying my 14 days is up for the reduced amount, again the letter date and date of service was days apart. It again can't prove it as the envelope doesn't have a date stamped on it, when I appeal which I've realised I have until next Tuesday should I keep my points small and hold back on the actual facts and save the facts for my second appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

all PWE claims in the lakes using ANPR have now been found to be faulty

see the parking pranksters site or other like threads here

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...