Jump to content
parkingbill2018

NPM PCN claimform - overstay Un-adopted Rd entrance to old St Edmunds Hosp Northampton

Recommended Posts

I started by looking at planning applications and luckily before I purchased a land registry document I discovered the planning department were looking at the wrong address!!!!! Phoned them back and as this is complicated I have had to submit my request by email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if the PPC are paying any council tax etc for the income derived in that area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 wher 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 thsi shows that in reality the parking co's ar actually servants of the landowner and have no locus oe agency to create contracts but that is ignored Just read the opening paras of POFA and you will see that. basically 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now have the correct planning application number and confirmed that the Tesco's landlord is the the same company, who own the whole site.

 

Also seen the deeds to the land.

 

Read the attached with interest.

 

Have they broken their agreement for the planning consent by not painting double yellow lines before Tesco's etc moved in or because the road is un-adopted is that a get out for them?

Double yellow lines.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading that article, it states that part of the road is adopted and it is requiring, unless agreed otherwise, that a Traffic Regulation Order be obtained for double yellow lines etc. It may also explain the boundary marking of the road in your earlier plans, from the main road just up to the island and the two short 'spurs' - it certainly looks adopted in your earlier pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may have had some temporary success. The NPM Cowboys, their floodlighting and flash cameras were not present last night when it was dark so they maybe lying low at the moment unless they were all at a staff Bonfire Party that Mt Gearly was holding! I know who I would have liked to have seen as the guy on top of the bonfire :) Sorry if that last sentence is breaking group rules. i have continued to push Tesco's into taking action. They have tried to fob me off and pull the wool over my eyes, but they apologised in the end for doing so and have stated this will be passed onto the area manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 harly 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 departmets at NDC arent singing from the same hymnsheet as they say in managementspeak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt think it was a done deal that the road will be adopted at all. I would think like you that all of the part causibg issues will be adopted. Yes the tarmac and normal line marking are part of the problem. It looks like a finished adopted road and as there are no signs stating otherwise obviously shopper are none the wiser until that PCN drops through the letter box!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please try and put everything up as PDF ONLY so we can ZOOM!!


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, I thought this was a construction site.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there has been a Stopping order by the council, Market Street is an adopted road already, it was a through road from Wellingborough Rd to Kettering Rd. The construction site access road is a seperate spur and will likely belong to the developer.


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the star. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry, I thought this was a construction site.

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

 

The document is a pdf from the Council website. The quality is poor. As they say you cannot polish the s word. Tesco property manager phoned me this afternoon. I am sending him all the complaint details and he is going to speak to the Landlord. If he gets a response it will be that the Parking Management Company is a member of the IPC and signs at the site approved by the IPC and Trading Standards. I have told him why to dismiss these statements.

 

He confirmed who I know to be the Landlord and owner of the land.

Edited by dx100uk
quote/merge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note that I'm also being hassled by these people for payment of a parking charge.... just ignoring everything so far. But I did check their assertion that the signage at this location had been 'approved by Trading Standards'. I checked with Northampton County Council Trading Standards, since this seemed a bold claim. I received an email reply saying that this was not the case.

PJM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signs or their approval are nothing to do with TS, they are not ADVERTS

might be best to start a new thread

you don't ignore EVERYTHING


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your point is?

The parking company in question have asserted that trading standards had 'approved' of the signage at this location.

I am simply pointing out that this is not the case.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they are talking twaddle I was agreeing...:lol:


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps anybody, I recently found out from the Tesco employees that NPM lost the contract from the landowner for this un-adopted road around a month ago due to numerous amounts of complaints

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the info...

Hi everyone.

 

I have not been on here for sometime as I was waiting for the LBC, which has finally arrived. I will upload it later with personal details covered.

 

Whilst waiting for the LBC my Father contacted Tesco Head Office about the issue of shoppers receiving PCN's in this road because the signage is poor (e.g. none at the entrance of the road, these refer to Land/Site, not Road & most do not face the driver) and consequently they park unaware that the road is Private/Un-adopted with no parking allowed.

 

Also NPM have been breaking IPC Codes of Conduct, like alluring drivers to park where it is forbidden by parking their own vehicles there & using portable floodlights and flash to take PCN photos at night because their signs or not illuminated.

 

As a result of this Tesco complained to their Landlord, who is the Landowner of the road and hence the NPM contract was suspended whilst investigations took place.

 

Management and staff at the store have assumed that the NPM contract has been cancelled because no one has been seen there for a few months now and one member of the NPM staff, who previously worked here, told staff that the company no longer manage the parking in this road anymore.

 

The NPM signs are still there except the one nearest the front of the store, which someone has removed.

 

However the Manager who was my Fathers contact at Tesco told us that the Landlord have completed their investigations and that the NPM contract is going to be reinstated after road repairs have been completed.

 

We cannot see that any repairs are required, & have not seen a copy of the investigation report.

 

The last 3 emails to this Tesco Manager have not received a reply, so he contacted Head Office, who have also been unable to contact this Manager.

 

instead they contacted the store and who confirmed their belief that the NPM contract has been cancelled & consequently they have made the following statement to my Father "I hope we have reassured you that this type of charge will not be incurred on our Customers any more and you can freely parkin the road when using this facility".

 

If this is definitely true we don't know why the other Tesco Manager misinformed us and then went silent on us. Something is not right, but my Father will get to the bottom of this.

 

My Father wrote a complaint letter about NPM to our MP, but she messed up and forgot to include enclosures with her first letter.

 

A second letter had to be sent which included these and a detailed reply was received, which sounded very good and believable, but a lot was untrue and are an attempt to wriggle out of the points of our complaint, so a third letter was required. This has not been responded to, other than receiving the LBC.

 

A complaint to the IPC about NPM breaking their code of conduct was hard work getting a response and turned out to be a waste of time as they just made up excuses for their member for each code that they had broken!

 

Parking Signs being approved by Trading Standards may be nothing to do with them.

However, over 4.5 years ago Gary Gearey, the MD of NPM was quote in the Northampton Chronicle & Echo newspaper that Trading Standards had approved the signs at this site, so if this was untrue I would love to have a copy of the email that supports this.

 

As promised here is the Letter Before Claim from NPM.

 

Does it legally comply?

It is interesting to see they have issued this themselves and not used a Solicitor.

I did have two QDR Solicitor letters before this and I saw that Gladstones messed up on one of their LBC's that caused issues with the court proceedings.

 

Any advice please on how to respond would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your continued support.

 

I have read Daewood V Camden (newspaper report). Camden Council won the case against the Dr Daewood parking on his own land so how does that support my case?

NPM LBC.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
merge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?





  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The part that I have highlighted in bold, I think it's not quite right.   I don't believe that if a consumer took a dealer to court, with the defect being a blown bulb, 25 days after taking ownership, they would win. Or else, people could just decide they didn't like the car anymore, put a knackered bulb in the car and reject it.   The severity of the defect does matter.   It needs to render the car not fit for purpose, not as described, or not of satisfactory quality. That's what defines whether a defect is really a defect or  not. Small but subtle point that needs to be clear to people reading the forum I think. Otherwise, people may think they can take a car back for any old reason.    
    • whatever it was you need the date and the rebate. then you enter that as a MINUS figure in the spready same as a PPI payment on the date they made it.  
    • Thanks dx, one more question 😕   the final payment I paid 6014.71 after 6 months, presumably because the ppi was front loaded and the loan was only 5000 that final payment included the rest of the total ppi (1174 added at the beginning)   if i got a rebate would it of shown on the statement as i cant remember from so many years ago!? 
    • Sangie5952   Thanks that has clarified what the ET1 form represents. We haven't made disclosures yet so I can include the relevant evidence then. Appreciate your help many thanks.  
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...