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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 863 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

We live in a parking blackspot in Basingstoke.

We have lived here for over 30 years and parking has become a nightmare for my husband and myself.

 

If we drive anywhere during the day we have to make sure we return by 4.00pm at the latest and not at all at weekends or we are unable to park.

It probably sounds over the top but it is having an effect on our lives.

 

We have a residential parking permit for our car and a visitors permit, which is pointless because we can never invite visitors because they cannot park.

 

It would seem that the "visitors" permit has become a 2nd car permit.

Many cars sit in the street, day after day displaying the visitors permit, some are sellotaped to the dashboard.

 

I have contacted the council for a definition of "visitor" but was sent a generic letter giving details of the permit with costs and application form.

 

Is there anything we can do other than move house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, to be honest.

 

With parking permits the issue is whether there is a valid permit on display.

If there is, they can park there.

 

The only alternative would be a review of the whole parking scheme at council level, and the number and types of permits they issue.

 

The outcome would be unknowable, but as an individual you are unlikely to have much clout.

 

You'd have a stronger hand if you and your neighbours lobbied the council collectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on the order given by the council to introduce the scheme.

 

Some councils have a charge for a visitors permit by the day,

other charge a fee for one on an annual basis,

some issue a book of them with scratch off panels for the date they are used.

Your council has tried to be nice but actually created a problem because of that.

 

This is a problem that occurs when people lobby the council to introduce a resident parking scheme but don't actually make sure the scheme is one that best suits the neighbourhood.

 

For example,

many schemes have very small zones but in Clapham, London your permit covers a number of roads in a block so you don't get to park near your house unless you are very lucky and most people commute by tube so once a car is parked in a space it often doesn't move for a week because the owner knows the problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The permits are issued on a n annual basis,

simply a piece of card with "visitors permit' on front.

 

 

We didnt lobby the council for the scheme,

it has been in operation for over 10 years.

 

 

It has been tinkered with until it now covers a block of roads.

The roads include several with their own drives etc.

All a bit of a mess really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your problem is not the misuse of permits but the lack of parking facilities designed in when the estate was built.

 

You can't blame families for having more than one car - my household has 4 which rises to 5 when the boy's G/F stays over when he's back from Uni.

 

This will only be resolved when you move and buy a place with sufficient parking for all your cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks but I live in a 1900s terrace house in the middle of a town. I have lived here for 37 years. I have one car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly - so your issue is the lack of parking facilities designed in when the estate was built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking wasn't an issue when the houses were originally built, its a street not an estate

My issue is with people who misuse the Visitors Permit as a permit for a second vehicle. Therefore preventing other residents (who accept that only one vehicle is suitable for the area) from parking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could go back to the council and ask for the terms and conditions of use for these permits. There might be conditions which exclude what you describe. You may have a long battle on your hands to get anything done, but you could try.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parking wasn't an issue when the houses were originally built, its a street not an estate

My issue is with people who misuse the Visitors Permit as a permit for a second vehicle. Therefore preventing other residents (who accept that only one vehicle is suitable for the area) from parking.

 

It's an estate, in this context the whole of London is made up of estates that were built at various times.

 

Of course it wasn't an issue in the 1900's as no one had a car then!

 

I think you are being unrealistic, you live in a highly populated area that was never designed for parking any cars in the street, in fact the streets were designed for the milkman's horse and cart and foot traffic, nothing else.

 

You aren't going to win this, the permit scheme is unmanageable and unfair, if you want to park outside your own home then move somewhere where you can have off street parking on property that you own.

 

A permit scheme isn't meant to guarantee you a parking place, it's just meant to generate revenue for the local council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Westminster issues twice as many permits as there are parking spaces and didnt need to charge poll tax because it made so much money from parking permits.

How they justify their revenues is impossible to tie into the law but no government of any colour will take them to task as it suits all parties to allow this for their own political ends. the tories say it keeps council tax down, the greens will claim that it limits the number of cars in inner London, labour will claim that it taxes the wealthy over the poor and no-one has ever met a Lib Dem in Westminster so their opinion is unknown.

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...