ParkingEye ANPR PCN Claimform - overstay - M&U Phase 1, Portishead (Lidl, Travelodge, Subway), Harbour Road, Portishead,

[bellx15]

OK, good.

[ericsbrother]

If you havent submitted a CPR 31.14 request for documents at the beginning then sit it out and see what they produce.

they cant rely on things they havent supplied to you in the correct timescale so you need to be looking at asking whether they do have the permission and then state that you do not believe they have a contrat with the landowner, planning permission ect and make sure that is the first thing you raise when you lay out your defence.

 

they arent entitled to say yes they do have it but wont produce it as that isnt evidence of the necessary permissions.

You must challenge everything and that includes the right of their legal rep to be there

( see the relavant rules on rights of audience as many of these cases are presented by paralegals from a local law firm and not a solicitor so they have no right to speak in court but that is often missed by the defendant so again take a copy fo the law/regs with you and be prepared to demand to knwo their SRA roll number and check it.

 

 

Thanks, both.

 

 

Is the SAR important in this context?

[ScarletPreacher]

Hi Guys,

We have just received a letter from PE

please see attached

i hope it is legible

PE7000 Reduced file size.pdf

Edited September 5, 2018 by ScarletPreacher
clarification

[dx100uk]

can you up your resolution a bit please

its really pixelated..

[bellx15]

I notice they say they have the relevant consent, but they don't say when they obtained it.

[ScarletPreacher]

apologies, im a real novice at that sort of thing.

are you able to shrink this to an adequate size. thank you

can you up your resolution a bit please

its really pixelated..

PE7000.pdf

[dx100uk]

so the usual template response and we already know that the signs are not the ones at the site and not positioned where they state?

[ScarletPreacher]

I'm intrigued by the Sentence in 3, "Even if there presence was a purported planning breach...."

sounds a bit bit like "You should do as you're told, regardless if it is lawful or not " ?

[bellx15]

It also sounds like they know it was a planning breach.

[ScarletPreacher]

Se are due at our hearing to the Small Claim Track on January 18th at 11am, and am now considering what should be included in our defence bundle.

 

we have images of the signage,

being different ,

with at least 3 or 4 types of sign,

all carrying PPE logos,

which one would consider makes the signage an 'Advertisement'

 

Advertising consent neither applied for of consented to

 

We have copies of the planing application and the date of its acceptance "4th May 2018" being after the said offence '13th March 2017',

 

Copy of the BPA'S Code of Practice

 

A copy of 'Portishead Town Council Minutes of Planning & Regulatory Committee Held on Wednesday 4th April 2018

 

18/P/2347/FUL where the text includes the line

'....No planning consent given for the Original installation of the parking camera system or the signage that has been installed'

(see attached images 1,2,3)

 

should we include town and county planning act or other relevant regulations.

 

we also have Shuteyeparks 30 page document listing sites with no advertising consent ,

 

any advice gratefully received

Edited December 31, 2018 by dx100uk
space/spell

[dx100uk]

removed uploads

ONE multipage PDF please so we can rotate and zoom please!!

 

read upload

[bellx15]

Hi SP - just to let you know what I have found out about this car park.

 

A couple of months ago I revisited the site, and discovered the following.

 

1. PE only has cameras and signs covering the 'inner sanctum' (nearest the shops).

 

2. The outer sanctum around the edge has no surveillance. No signs or cameras.

 

3. There is free passage from the inner to the outer and vice versa. The perimeter fencing is incomplete.

 

The upshot of all this is that PE has no way of determining where you parked - inner or outer sanctum, so has no evidence that you have incurred any charges.

 

I am interested in whether you will use this defence, as my case comes up on Feb 5th, and I intend to concentrate on this one argument.

 

And good luck!!

[ericsbrother]

Yes of course. s the breach was PARKING then you argue that their cameras track everyone who passes through and as such obtain data they are not entitled to process for the purposes they are being used for and that you did not enter into a contract with them as the land your vehicle was going to and from has nothing to do with them.

 

Keep away from even saying it was parked anywhere, they are not monitoring parking but entry and exit so amker it clear their operations fail to monitor parking events at all.

So have you looked up the parking pranksters blog and read the linked article to ther blog of 16th dec 2017. Go to the bottom of the article and click on the link £his research can be downloaded from here".

Copy the article and use that as well as you should use the lack of planning as your first argument ( illegal activity on their part so you cant agree to enter into a criminal compact) and then use the deficient coverage of their cameras as an "in any case" argument. By the time they get your witness statement they may well decide to disconyinue rather then risk being sued by anyone who paid up who then reads the report you will kindly give us afterwards.

 

so advice to both of you, yes chuck the kitchen sink at it in your WS. Get plans or google satellite images of the site and mark them out so you can show the judge what is going on there. there are plenty of other places where the cameras cover public rights of way etc so trawl the web looking for other examples to persuade tge judge that it isnt unique and that the chances of PE not knowing this is small

[ScarletPreacher]

Thanks for the info, i will re check 3. and hopefully include it

[ScarletPreacher]

Apologies....as usual lol, hope the pdf format is easier to read, it is not the full meeting notes, just the relevant ones

Town Planing meeting.pdf

[ScarletPreacher]

done

thank you

[ericsbrother]

so no planning permission at the time they decided you owed them money? great and they know they are wrong.

Now as planning is usually granted on the nod and it usually costs nowt why dont the parking co's just apply for it as a matter of course? You should note though that permission is NOT retrospective, even though they have been allowed to keep their kit it doesnt make it legal for them to have used it in the past. that is made clear ijn the article I referred to in post #88

[ScarletPreacher]

I was just reading some case studies where PE has claimed that planning permission was back dated to the time of application,

i'm pleased i just came across this letter clearly stating valid from the date of this decision notice

valid from time of decision .pdf

[ScarletPreacher]

After another visit to the Portishead/ LIDl Carpark, I have been able to Confirm that there is in fact a Vehicle gap in the perimeter allowing entry in and exit from the designated area as described by BellX15

[ScarletPreacher]

Any help or advice very much appreciated

 

The last letter received from the court had The statement

 

"each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely on at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing'

 

I am hoping to post next day delivery this afternoon or as soon as completed

 

I am also just compiling some sets of photos with regard to

1. The varied signage

2. The gap in the perimeter where you can drive in and out avoiding the camera capture point

3. Wetherspoons Posset cup, signage and receipt as these now show conditions for extended time

 

could you let me know if i am on the right track or doing the wrong thing here

saying too much or the wrong format ?

any help would be very much appreciated

Cheers

Parkingeye Ltd Vs Redacted.pdf

[bellx15]

SP - The signs say: "Failure to comply with the terms and conditions ...etc" and "which are set out in this notice" (in the small-print).

 

Where are they? Nothing on the sign is labelled "Terms and Conditions".

[ericsbrother]

T&C's are not the same as an offer of a contract ( they can be but not automatically) For example, you can be offered a contract that has other T&C's that are elsewhere and you are suppoed to read these before signing on the ditted line, as in mosy online contracts where you are sent to anothe page via a link so you can read the small print.

 

With a parking sign all of the contract must be on the sign, no references to other signs or places ( hence the signs that say temrs apply please read signs inside car park for details are NOT contracts but invitations to treat). Also the wording of the contract must be of equal size to carry any weight. Small print isnt a contract as far as signs go. That is not made clear in law but several decisions have reinforced this point. Even different fonts and colours of words on signs can kill the offer as what is supposed to happen is anything that counts is in letters as big as the largest characters used (rare indeed).

 

Go through what the sigsn say in the small print and use thsi to argue that it isnt a contract offered by the big words as only they count and then use examples taken from the parking pranksters blogspot and web site (copy these and use as examples that are persuasive)

Edited January 7, 2019 by honeybee13
Paras

[ScarletPreacher]

Well its Bitter Sweet, but PE has dismissed the case

[dx100uk]

they cant

you mean they've sent a discontinuance letter?

[ScarletPreacher]

Cant seem to post attachments here anymore