NPM PCN claimform - overstay Un-adopted Rd entrance to old St Edmunds Hosp Northampton - *** Claim Struck Out+Costs***

[ericsbrother]

quality of advice is what you needed, not quantity of time spent on the wrong thing. Unfortunately all of the groups you have spoken to have no knowledge of the detailed aspects of the law that make the claim a nonsense and your attempts to communicate with the parking co and their poodles have just shown up your lack of knowledge in the subject so they will take you for a fool and rely on the old adage that a fool and his money are soon parted.

 

 

Now with the circumstances outlined above they are on to a loser for at least 2 reasons, firstly they have fialed ot apply the minimum grace period ( and I bet their ticket/NTK doesnt have an observation period either) and secondly, a sign saying no parking isnt an offer of a cntract, it is a prohibition and that menas there can be no meeting of minds and agreement of terms. Being members of the IPC thye rely on the expertise of Gladstomes solicitors to write their signs but as Will and John (who own the IPC as well) have a long track record of shoddy work in this respect the parking co think they are right and will use any method to bully you into paying.

 

 

So, to help you we need to see the entrance to the land from the public highway, the signage there, the signage elsewhere on the land you were parked and the original notice you were sent so we can see if tney ahve got anything right. Your long bout of letter tennis will ahev damaged your position in some regards but based on the 2 main points they dont have a claim.

show us what you can and tell us who the parking co are as some are more litigious than others but any member of the IPC tends to believ the bul they are told by Gladdys so we expect them to start an action but the drop it later when it is obvious you arent going to cave in.

[ericsbrother]

the law is not retrospective so even if the govt decided that hanging was to be introduced for using bad english on parking notices nothing could happen to them as they predate the new law.

 

 

So the facts are the fcats, 2 reasons as to why their demand is duff so dont get side tracked and get the piccies we ned to provide the proof they are complete twonks

Edited October 18, 2018 by honeybee13

[ericsbrother]

so far so good but we need to be able to read the signage that is there as well.

Please read a load more threads so you get a better idea of what we are after and in what format.

 

Here is the entrance of the un-adopted road from the highway

[ericsbrother]

also get pictures of where the sign was and isnt now as this will help you in the long run by time stamping their evidence (and yours).

 

 

The sign is prohibitive in nature so not an offer of terms for parking so the amount thye are claiming is an unlawful penalty. Basically you arent offered terms for parking so not a genuine offer bur at best a sign that is designed to dissuade you from parking. The only way you can agree to be bound by its conditions is to break them!

 

 

 

Plenty of law on this so in the long run you are safe. Problem is they know this but will still try and get you to pay up by coercion threats or by using a court claim in the hope you then collapse and pay up when theyr is nio lawful reason for them to demand a penny. Their solicitors are well aware fo thsi but as the same 2 people own the IPC you can see how some people think that the IAS is just a kangaroo court and the solicitors are abusing the court process by encouraging the IPC members to make false claims.

Edited October 19, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[ericsbrother]

there is a new sign so we need to see that as well. This is laid out on a lot of other threads and surely common sense would dictate that you took a picture whilst there as it is different to the one you have already posted up.

 

 

Also your answers to the questions dont answer them, we need DATES and we need to see the phots taken by the parking attendant with your details redacted. Seeing the entire NTK would be better as very often they arent even good enough to create any liability as they dont contain the necessary information adn key phrases. If they get that wrong the fact you appealed wont matter as it isnt a legal demand so they cant progress it and get anywhere.

 

 

We wnat to help but so far it is like pulling teeth, try and be a bit more proactive.

Edited October 20, 2018 by honeybee13
pa

[ericsbrother]

they are not interested in what you might do because although that may suit the landlord they want to make money and the only way they can is to invent a reason, whether that reason is legal or not.

 

Now our advise may often say ignore them but that doesnt mean ignore them for ever, we always recommend responding to lba's even if it is to tell them to get lost because that creates a paper trail and knocks on the head the claim that you didnt engage with them.

 

With compaies who are members of the BPA it is often worth using their appeals process because although very limited in its remit you can get somewhere or at least cost them money.

 

With the IPC it is NEVER worth appealing because their process is a kangaroo court (as seen on TV) and never properly considered.

I cant say if MSE differentiates between the 2 but we certainly do.

[ericsbrother]

now to me it looks as though the white lines were painted by the council at the same time as the other lane markings.

this brings into play the rather dubious decision of Dawood v Camden so even if private land it is effectively under council control and they dont prohibit parking.

 

In other words the land may be private but the road isnt private land as far as this matter goes.

Bit like me ticketing you for parking outside my house.

 

I own the wall my dodgy sign is stuck to but it doesnt apply to the actual tarmac.

Not necessarily convincing on its own but it is another nail in their coffin

Edited October 23, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[ericsbrother]

so who did the paint job on the junction onto Wellingborough Rd?

If the council then they have adopted it using the criteria of Dawood.

 

You are asking questions of people the wrong way about so if you ask someone if they have a contract with x and they say yes it is easy for them, if you say that

 

can they prove the contract they have also applies to the public highway and thus they will be liable for any breach of the GDPR as a result of that contract they will undoubtedly want to deny such an agreement exists.

 

The other thing is that the developer may well not be the landowner,

it is common for companies to buy land and get PP and then sell on to another party at a vast profit because they cant actually develop the place themselves.

 

the handover usually takes place after the building has gone up and the builders arent the landowners either so this menas the parking co often dont have an agreement with anyone who actually has any rights at that stage.

 

You need to look at tehe planning applicationa and permission for the site and the ask council or Valuations agency who actually owns the land.

Edited October 28, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[ericsbrother]

did you get pitures of them doing this? You should have got in their faces and explained to them that you were using this in a documentary about them and would they like to be seen on the television.

 

 

Get on to Tescos's again about this, they will have to make a lot of friends or they will be picked on for every small bit of noise pollution etc their demolition and building workks creates. Also have a word with the Bats Protection people about the pipistrelles roosting there being disturbed by the idiotic behaviour of the parking goons..No-one cares about motorists but upset a bat and the full weight of ther law will fall upon them, even if you cant see the bat

[ericsbrother]

the letter is a computer generated bit of bog roll, it mentions they are instructed by ZZPS, who are powerless DCA's and so cant instruct anyone.

 

 

You seem to have great faith in methods that experience shoyuld tell you dotn work like petitions and complaining to the IPC about their members behaviour. The parking co's ony join the IPC because they dont want to obey the rules of the BPA and they are not exactly onerous. The IPC tout for business by saying that they are cheaper and you dotn lose appeals to the unwashed public. That is certainly true because their appeals process is a kangaroo court as defined in the dictionary.

 

 

So, ask council or valuations Agency who the landowner is. Tesco will opnly be tenant or but the plot after the work has finished and the actual land ownership may well change 3 times during the planning and building process ( a nice earner for some) so dates of change of ownership is important.

 

 

 

Also look up the actual landlord at Companies House. Occasionally the landonwer is so in hock the lenders dont allow them to enter into contracts without their say so. That has won one court case (lack of authority to enter into a contract) and would be another reason for a judge to prefer your evidence over theirs should it come to it (they are never called out and out liars because then the judge would ahve to consider having them sent down for perjury and that is a messy business when it comes to companies)

 

 

All this still doesnt change the main thing that thee is no offer of a contract to park though so they are stuffed. What you are trying to do is make it impossible for them to even get that far and thej if they are daft enough to still want to then cost them a small fortune

Edited November 2, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[ericsbrother]

yep, all private land need PP for signs with certain exceptions that are "deemed consent" so theoreticlly you need PP for your house number but the law says that is a given.

[ericsbrother]

no problem as the planning people are usually busy but helpful. As said, you can also try the Valuations Agency as it is a commercial premises. You might want to dob NPN in for running a car park without paying rates for doing so. Convoluted law but sometimes the landowner gets a kick in the backside for this.

[ericsbrother]

no, hence dobbing them in to the VA.

the council will get some money as well but they dont decide on whether the land attracts business rates, the VA does.

 

Rare for a car park to be separate but I have forced the issue once in Selsdon where Lidl demolished a pub and used the land as a car park without telling anyone so both they and PE got clobbered.

 

PE subsequently wriggled out of it but Lidl then got a bigger bill anyway and this shows that in reality the parking co's are actually servants of the landowner and have no locus or agency to create contracts but that is ignored Just read the opening paras of POFA and you will see that.

 

big business has the clout and the law is to protect rich people from losing their money to poor people.

Been that way since the 1600's and the defeat of the Diggers and Levellers movements

[ericsbrother]

so a question about which part will be the adoptable hightway when completed.

The layout suggests all of the access road that is currently the part that is causing the problem.

 

Now the next para that you can hardly see in your post makes it clear as to where this does end and to my mind the actual tarmac already there is covered by this so probably adopted by the default position of planning being granted.

 

appears as though 2 departments at NDC arent singing from the same hymnsheet as they say in managementspeak.

[ericsbrother]

It wont be adopted until the store opens for business but you can stuill rely on Dawood v Camden and the overriding fact that there is no contract to breach. Do not forget this last point as it is the only sure fire winner, the rest rely onpeople being convinced that a contract is void because... rather than no contract to start with

[ericsbrother]

sorry, I thought this was a construction site.

who is the landowner as it isnt Tesco Knowing this may be helpful re contracts and planning for signs

[ericsbrother]

approved by TS? that is an out and out lie.

So who is the landowner then? You want to know how to find alternative ways of fighting this so spill the beans.

[ericsbrother]

if you want help fighting your unjustified ticket we will need to know everything about the dates and times etc so start a new thread. We know that they are lying about TS approval, it is already stated in my post immediately above yours

[ericsbrother]

useful to know

thanks

[ericsbrother]

it shows that the council has rights over the land and that in return menas the parking co's authority is trumped as you would naturally consider that the road surface is council property or at least maintained by them so signage doesnt apply.

As for responding to the lba I would do so but keep it short.

 

Dear sirs,

 

I deny that any monies are owed as no contrcat was created so there can be nothing owed for a breach of somehting that doesnt exist. If yu do take the matter to court I shall be seeking a full costs recovery orer under CPR 27.14.2(g) for your unreasonable conduct as you know there is no cause for action and you have no authority to make such a claim.

Edited February 7, 2019 by honeybee13
Paras, typos

[ericsbrother]

in short they have told lies to your MP because they know that it wont be looked into again by them.

 

the other thing you need to do is change your mindset from being defensive and seeing their point of view to looking agressively for why they are wrong.

 

You have been given loads of examples and reasons yet want to look for reasons to fail.

Believing you are right and it becomes easier to fight the chisellers becuase your worries disappear

Edited February 11, 2019 by dx100uk
quote

[ericsbrother]

you can use that as being a persuasive case. That may well put them off suing yu if they send a proper lba and ypu taunt them with it. knowedge is power an they wont expect you to know they have been gladstoned ( hammered for bringing a poorly prepared hopeless claim to court and losing badly, named after Gladstones solicitors who do most of this)

[ericsbrother]

that assumes they only ever issued 2 tickets so they can determine who the second one is. they rely on ignorance to collect the majority fo their money as they have no legal grounds to do so. They know that but it hasnt made them alter their behaviour in the last 7 years

[ericsbrother]

TBH I think the chances of them wanting to try their luck at court are diminishing and they probably decided to crawl away from that when they had to invent lies for your MP to read.

they rely a lot on ignorance and once their behaviour reached the public domain they find it harder to convince people the world is flat.

 

Anyway, keep all your stuff safe and let us know if you do hear any more.

other than that just keep your ears open for other peoples coplains about the same and point them to here

[ericsbrother]

sometimes the parking co believe the garbage they are told by their trade associations and the only way they learn is to lose a few quid on a hopeless claim.

 

unfortunately this gives you the headache of being the one to give them a spanking but from what you have done so far that shouldn't be too difficult for you to handle.

 

Keep us informed and if you do get a claim then post up exactly what they say it is for as often they use the wrong reason such as a contractual sum when they mean breach of contract.

 

Any judge who is on the ball will kick out their claim but only if this point is raised by the defendant so make sure you go through it with a fine toothed comb