PCM Windscreen PCN claimform - Sailsbury village - REsidential Permit fallen on Floor **WON**

[ericsbrother]

so have you read the judges open ended parking contracts as per one of the court reports on the parking prankster's blogspot? Also have you looked up who owns the land as it isnt usual for Bovis to hang on to it. you can ask the council when you ask about the planning permission for the parking signage

[apahtan]

1 hour ago, ericsbrother said:

so have you read the judges open ended parking contracts as per one of the court reports on the parking prankster's blogspot? Also have you looked up who owns the land as it isnt usual for Bovis to hang on to it. you can ask the council when you ask about the planning permission for the parking signage

 

Can't find the judgement about open ended parking contract,

Found out from council that road is still unadopted but the property which the vehicle was parked in front of, is not owned by Bovis Homes - not sure if this counts, as Bovis could still own the road or if frontage applies

Edited March 20, 2019 by apahtan
clearer wording

[apahtan]

Used map locator on land registry. Still owned by Bovis

[ericsbrother]

so it is likely that Bovis will pass on road to council at some point in furure.

you need to reread the pranksters blogspot for the last 3 years at least. It is there somewhere. then you can copy and quote it. Time spent reading all those blogs will not be wasted, you will leanr a lot more than you will from me!

[apahtan]

Won the case!

 

No solicitor for the claimant came, Judge asked us to explain our case (I brought a friend who I thought would be my lay representative, but Judge said they could only be a Mackenzie friend)

 

Argued over following points:

1. Prohibitive sign - although I dont think I explained myself clearly and Judge didn't seem too convinced by it
2. Misleading signage - Judge didn't accept our argument of "within windscreen", but was convinced by logo and Unfair Contracts 2008 regs
3. Locus Standi - argued they breached their contract because said sign didnt follow contract documentation
4. Conduct - made point that no record of LBA or NtK received - WS from Gladdys mentioned an NtK

Judge also said this charge was a penalty and they were familiar with Beavis case but not PCM v Bull

Also, the fact that it was a residential road, the Judge disagreed that any services were provided by PCM

 

Funny thing happened when it came to asking for costs, Judge said that it might not be the end of the issue and to take the dismissal of the claim, still asked for travel costs and they seemed peeved off.

Was a bit put off by that.

[Peterbard]

Well done, and well done for sticking to your guns.

[brassnecked]

Still a great result, another PPC loses money chasing what they weren't entitled to in the first place.  Nice One.

[FTMDave]

Well done! 

[apahtan]

In short, I think we had some luck on our side. If anyone is reading this for their own claim you need to put a LOT of research time in. It took me at least a good 20 -30 hours overall reading, editing, copy/pasting and trying to understand the arguments. It wouldve been a lot easier if I had done this in a more organised fashion. I went into this without knowing a lot. 

Personally I think the stuff I presented was confusing and didn't follow a nice, logical format and was not succinct. That's mainly down to doing it last minute - so avoid that at all costs!

 

Finally, thanks to all your help guys. To be completely honest, I think the £60 fine at the start would have been cheaper when considering the time cost and stress of the process, and I know many, if not all on this forum would disagree with me (since we are all here to fight these extortionists). The PPCs have used the legal system to make this process lengthy, (stress-inducing for those not in the know) and full of uncertainty and for them it is a numbers game, which unfortunately continues to net them lots of money.

[dx100uk]

Fine?

 

 

[ericsbrother]

consider this, If you didnt fight it why would the parking co stop at £60? They would soon ramp the amount demanded up to say £200 or whatever the amount most people would pay up without a fight.

Consider how much this has cost them, Gladstone dont work for free even thtough they are the IPC in another frock. they have wasted money on letters, dca threats, the DVLA access charge etc, all in all they have probably spent a lot more than £60.

 

As you now have proof that they had no claim you can also sue them for breach of the DPA/GDPR for obtaining (and more importantly processing) your keeper deatils without reasonable cause and that is worth 3500 to you if you fancy it.

What I would do is send CPM a letter saying they should now pay your wasted time costs of say £60 ( it seems to be their favourite number) or you will sue them  for that and the £500 for the breach of the DPA as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016. Copy of letter to Galdstones to let them know that their  poor advice andpractices is what really lost their client money

[brassnecked]

Ericsbrother's suggestion has merit, bite the would be biter back.