Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

OPS/DCB(L) 2xPCN's PAPLOC Now claimform - Machine said Not In Use - Llangrannog (Beach) car park, West Wales *** Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 227 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Whilst on holiday, I parked my car twice in what looked like a public car park in a remote village in West Wales. I went to buy a ticket, but the ticket machine said Not in Use. There was an alternative means of payment offered by internet, but the internet connection in that part of the country is so weak, I gave up after 3 attempts.

 

I was probably a little naïve, but I never imagined they would slap a charge on me, given that paying to park there was nigh on impossible, but sure enough, a week or so later the letters arrived, and that's exactly what they did.

 

My appeal has been rejected, so I'm now debating whether to pay up (twice) or to go to POPLA and possibly end up having to pay more.

 

I didn't think at the time to photograph the Not In Use machine, so I have no real evidence to support my appeal. The only thing I could offer is entries on my credit card statement where I've paid for parking at other locations in Wales in the same week.

 

Any advice gratefully received

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine they want 2 x £100 from you.  That won't increase if you go to POPLA.  The problem is that the fleecers will insist the machine was working and POPLA will believe them (POPLA have got worse & worse in accepting appeals). 

 

A photo of the knackered machine would have been a very good idea.

 

In your appeal did you out yourself as the driver?

 

Please fill this in

 

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to FTMDave, thank you for your comments.

 

OPS actually want 2x£60, but it goes up to £100 if I appeal to POPLA and lose. Yes, "wise after the event" and all that. If I had realised this was going to happen, I wouldn't even have parked there, never mind photographing the ticket machine.

 

And yes, I did admit to being the driver. Seeing as they have my car on CCTV, they will also have me on CCTV too. But it's interesting what you say about POPLA's record on accepting appeals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a crying shame you didn't take the photo, but hey, you're a honest person thinking you were dealing with an honest company - but as we deal with these companies every day we realise that 99.9999% of them are utter thieves.

 

At least use this as a learning curve, in future always be suspicious of PPCs, never appeal and certainly never admit to being the driver.

 

Go for POPLA if you want, but don't expect much luck.  Years back the site used to recommend appealing to POPLA but then new people were put in to run it and I think its remit was changed - anyway the result was not good.

 

This is a long, long, long shot, but surely if you fell foul of their games then others will too.  Do a web search for the car park, there may be a photo on other forums, or on the site of the local rag, etc.

 

In fact you haven't told us the name of the car park.  Please do so as there might have been other cases on this site too.

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they have not used cctv..

its an anpr system that records reg no.s

can you please fill our questionnaire out please

and scan up everything in/out to date to one mass pdf?

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in Llangrannog car park, and yes I'm certainly not the only one to be add as this article reveals

 

WWW.CAMBRIAN-NEWS.CO.UK

More people have come forward to express anger over fines issued at a car park in Llangrannog including a woman who was just passing through the...

So dx100, they have sent me pictures of my car entering and leaving the car park. Are you saying that ANPR works just by snapping cars as they go in and out, and they are unlikely to have rolling CCTV footage?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on all the digging you've done.  You now have evidence that the machine is broken, and constantly.  I see there is a FB page, and a lawyer involved, all of whom you could contact for further proof.

 

So it's up to you.  You can pay the fleecers 2 x £60 that you don't owe, and the matter ends there.

 

Or you can stick two fingers up to them, refuse to pay, prepare for a long fight, and use the time to build up a case against them.

 

We would prefer you did the latter, and would help the best we can. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/06/2021 at 20:03, ghedgehog said:

Are you saying that ANPR works just by snapping cars as they go in and out, and they are unlikely to have rolling CCTV footage?

no-one can use any 'footage' from whatever system to ID a driver...end off.

please complete this (just put both on one of the ANPR reply section.)

Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Date of the infringement 03/05/2021
 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 12/05/2021

3 Date received 13/05/2021
 

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 - unsuccessful
 

7 Who is the parking company? One Parking Solution

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Llangrannog (Beach) car park, West Wales
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA

Dave,

are you saying that now there is a photo on a news website showing the ticket machine Not in Use,

I have a realistic chance of appealing the "fine"?

What you said before about POPLA suggests that might not be enough for them.

Are you anticipating having to go to court and fight it out there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

someone should be telling that local newspaper they are not fines.

but your assumptions are correct.

await and see if they use some fake, paperwork only solicitors letterheads in the same printer, after sending sending lots of scary letters in various school crayon colours from fake DCA's, that are not bailiffs, entitled letter of claim.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article you found, with its picture of the machine not in use (which I missed, well spotted you!) plus the fact you paid everywhere else in Wales, all back up what you stated right from the beginning - you always pay in P&D car parks, but they made it impossible to pay.  Indeed this evidence suggests the company deliberately leave the machine knackered so they can issue their invoices.

 

So yes, use that evidence in a POPLA appeal if you want - but don't expect much joy.

 

Personally I would just ignore POPLA and refuse to pay.  The article you found has links to similar articles.  I read the lot last night, as well as the comments sections (which I indeed added to).  There are the names of several motorists who it should be easy to contact through social media, a solicitor, a FB page, a sort of residents association IIRC and the journalists, who are likely to sympathetic, all publish their e-mail address. 

 

I'd contact the lot.  I'd ask the motorists if they'd be willing to send an e-mail with their name mentioning their experience with the machine which you want to use if necessary in court - some will wet themselves, but presumably some will help.  I'd ask the FB page/solicitor/residents if they have evidence that could help you, especially photos of the broken machine and names of motorists willing to back up your story.  I should think the journalists would stick you on the front page if you wanted! 

 

Read some OPS threads here so you can see what will happen if you don't pay.

 

Anyway, the PPCs generally destroy half the Amazon by sending letters which are meant to be threatening, then get third parties to write further letters pretending the amount has increased to £160/£170 to try to frighten you (no basis in law for this increase BTW, it's just bluff).

 

They then might give up, or they might send you a Letter Before Claim which you reply to ridiculing their case and telling them you have a mound of photographic and written evidence that their machine is always broken, ready to put before a judge.

 

At this point they may crawl back under their stone, or they could issue a court claim, which you would defend.

 

They then might discontinue, or they might chance court, where you would take them on.  In my time on this site, when cases have actually got to court, motorists have won about nine and a half times out of ten.  You can see this in our "PPC Successes" thread at the top of the page. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave, for your detailed reply.

 

My original enquiry was whether it's worth appealing to POPLA, and you've convinced me that it's not, so I appreciate that advice.

 

If I'm honest, I doubt if I've got the stomach for a longer legal battle, in spite of the success rate you quoted. There would certainly be a lot of work involved, as you say yourself, and I'm acutely aware that some of the motorists featured in the news articles about this car park have had a much better case than I do. OPS would simply argue that if I couldn't meet the conditions on their clearly displayed sign, I shouldn't have parked there. Ticket machine may have been broken, and there may have been no internet signal, but it's private land.

 

95% success rate is really good, but what happened to the other 5%? I really don't want a CCJ, and I did have a case in the small claims court many years ago, and still remember how stressful that was.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ghedgehog said:

but it's private land

good put you in the driving seat...

 

even if you did 'lose' in court...payment within 28days would mean the CCJ would never show.

 

stop worrying...stand your ground be strong and read the threads here

 

the more you read the stronger we become.

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's up to you, if you pay the fleecers £120 that you don't owe you'll get rid of them.

 

The alternative is to put a lot of work in, albeit spread out over many months, and leave them with a bloody nose.

 

What they are doing is simple thieving, deliberately leaving the machine not in use so they issue their charges.

 

As dx says, there is zero chance of you getting a CCJ, CCJs are only issued to people who lose in court and then defy the court and still refuse to pay.

 

I can go into more detail if you want, but the reason the PPCs usually lose in court is because they invariably send along a solicitor who practises near the motorist's court, who doesn't have a clue about the case.  Then the poor solicitor is dealt a rubbish hand by the PPC.  For example, if your case ever got to court I bet OPS wouldn't mention anything about their knackered machine.  Start introducing evidence that the machine is rubbish, and the solicitor wouldn't know how to react.

 

As for the 5% of cases that go wrong, well we call it the "judge lottery".  Being a judge is just like any other job, there are judges who are professional and open-minded, and there are some who are lazy and biased.  Now & again the latter pop up. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for your detailed replies. Yes, I agree, what OPS are doing is tantamount to theft, but in my case, I fear it's legalised theft. I can't find that many other OPS cases in this forum, but of those that I did find, including those mentioned in the news articles paid online, all had actually paid for their parking ticket, but were "fined" in spite of that. They clearly have a much better case than I do.

 

My one and only previous experience in the small claims court has taught me that it's not about what is fair and reasonable, all the judge cares about is the law, and what's in the contract.

On 11/06/2021 at 16:02, dx100uk said:

good put you in the driving seat...

Dx, I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment above, and I still fear that I am (regrettably) legally in the wrong.

 

Dave, you admit that I would have to put in a lot of time fighting this case, and I'm thinking that really, life is too short, and that time is worth more to me than the £120. Nonetheless, I would contest it on principle, if I thought I had a realistic chance of winning.

 

I take your point about not getting a CCJ if you pay the "fine", but the stakes are escalating, surely. If I lose, I will have to pay the court costs as well as the £200 fine, won't I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

stop thinking and using the word fine and you might understand how things work better 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that the motorists interviewed in the local paper had a better case than you.  OPS made it impossible to pay, and can be shown to have allowed this at best negligent situation to go on for months.

 

You've asked straight questions, which is fair enough.  If OPS did sue you, it would be for 2 x £100 PCN + 2 x £60 invented Unicorn Food Tax + £50 legal costs (remember these are capped at small claims) + £50 court fee costs + some interest = around £420.  There are three possible outcomes to a court case

   - you win and owe £0.00

   - you lose, the judge doesn't allow the Unicorn Food tax, you owe £300.00

   - you lose, the judge is lazy and allows the Unicorn Food Tax, you owe £420.00.

 

Yes, fighting would take some work, however over many months, namely

   - build up some evidence against them as in post 14

   - read other OPS threads here so you get the right idea

   - reply to a Letter Before Claim if it comes, we have loads of examples of snotty letters on the forum

   - defend the claim should it be issued, we have a standard generic defence

   - if the case proceeds, prepare a Witness Statement.  This has to be done seriously & properly.  However, again, there are examples compiled by other motorists here which you could use as a basis.

 

This is all worst case scenario of course, if they knew you'd be big trouble in court they might well give up before a court claim.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Unicorn Food Tax 😀

 

One more question (I can't guarantee it will be the last) - if OPS does take me to court, I presume I will have to attend in person? Is that likely to be in Worthing? I dare say hearings are taking place online at the moment, but who knows how long that will last?

 

Also, you mention other OPS threads. I've found a couple, but they do seem very different from my case, and are quite hard to follow as well. Is there one similar to my case, where they've been unable to buy a ticket but have no evidence of their own to back that up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would always be at your local court and still most are by video due to Covid

but you are not even at the paploc stage yet....and quite poss never will be

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the questions coming, that's what we're here for 😉

 

It was forum regular Ericsbrother who came up with the expression the Unicorn Food Tax, quite an accurate way to describe the extra £60 the PPCs add to their claims with no legal justification whatsoever.

 

Yes, were OPS to take you to court you would be the defendant and so the case would be at your local court (or any court you chose).  Again yes, you would have to attend (although at the moment hearings are remote due to COVID).

 

I'll have a look at other OPS threads, but also have a search on this forum for "broken machine" and the same on the Parking Prankster's blog, there must be something.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

01-12-2016 C2GF5R96 Minster Baywatch v Ms W. York The motorist parked in a car park charging £1 for 12 hours. The motorist was perfectly w...

 

 

Edited by FTMDave
Extra link added

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you must do is get the FINE narrative out of your head, they are not fines, they are a Speculative Invoice for breaching the terms in a Contract they allege they have by you parking in a car park they infest.  Now if you made an effort to pay, or it was impossible to pay, as sole method a broken machine, and any mobile app system convoluted and difficult to use, or impossible as no mobile signal, any contract they deemed exists would be frustrated by the inability of you to make the required consideration, as in actually pay.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I continue to refer to it as a "fine" partly as a wind-up, but also because it is a fine in all but name. It's not going to affect my decision as to whether to contest it though. I have almost made up my mind to do so, but I have until 22nd June to pay the reduced amount, so I may chicken out before then

I have attached a PDF with the PCNs in - photographed with my phone, so I hope it's legible.

Thanks for links to those other threads. I'll have a read through

PCNs.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just found this on Trust Pilot

WWW.TRIPADVISOR.COM

Llangrannog Beach: AVOID BEACH FRONT PARKING nothin to do with the locals - See 362 traveler reviews, 191 candid photos, and great deals for Llangrannog, UK, at Tripadvisor.

There are over 70 complaints about your OPS in Llangrannog car park. Spread over several years with the machine not working and the phone coverage non existent the crooks are making money hand over fist.

 

However the Courts take a dim view of motorists being charged consistently when their apparatus is out of order and they know phone coverage is poor.

 

As they are making money this way there is no compulsion on them to get their ticket machine working. As such they will not be able to claim that their charges are justified.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...