Letter from solicitors re ticket 2 years ago Options

[oldredhen]

I'd really appreciate some guidance as to whether anything can be done now about a ticket received 2 years ago. This was for parking on DYL on a private industrial estate patrolled by UKCPM. The ticket was unsuccessfully appealed and has dragged on with queries etc, last heard from debt recovery agency end of 2016, then a letter from solicitor beginning of 2017 and then nothing again until just this month, "Letter before claim" from the solicitor.

I can give further details (a lot of them!) but thought I would just keep it to a brief idea of the situation. Are there any grounds for continuing to fight against a private company's ticket now it's gone this far down the line? Many thanks.

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

So were DYL mentioned on the signage? Post up the suitably sanitized copy of the NTK. leave dates

[nosferatu1001]

Was the driver identified to them?

Just answer YES or NO. Do not tell US who drove

Continuing the fight is easy - was thi ds areal sols letter or just a fake one? If its from gladstones does it say to pay them or DRP, for example?

[oldredhen]

Thanks both for prompt reply. For clarification, this letter has been handed to me by my son-in-law to see if I can do anything about it

He owns a unit on a private industrial estate that suddenly had DYL painted all round it about 3 years ago, and the estate management company handed over control of this to UKCPM. It's really frustrating for him as their forecourt is small and loading is very difficult with these restrictions now in place. The company van was parked straddling the DYL directly outside his unit while they were loading another vehicle, for about 30 minutes. Distance from kerb to shutter door is about one vehicle length so they could easily have been spoken to about moving the vehicle. I might need to get the answers to some of your questions with him, but I think he's given me all the correspondence between them.

ostell: Bizarre. The tiny picture of the sign they have put on their second letter is too small to read the details. So I went on to Google street view, and it looks like the sign opposite their unit has been taken down (it was fixed to the wall of the building opposite). (SIL did say it seems to have gone quiet with the wardens lately.) UKCPM went around fixing these signs to any and every surface they wanted, including the walls of people's buildings and other people's fences. My son-in-law took off the one they fixed to his fence, deeming it damaging to his property. I'll post the letter...

nosferatu1001: An Aha moment! The first solicitor's letter invites him to make payment to DRP immediately (last year's letter) or make proposals to DRP, not the solicitors. So that one could well have been from DRP. Not so sure about the one received this month; says "Please pay or reply within 30 days of the date of this letter", with the payment details given on the back as the solicitor's name.

Driver has never been named and it could have been one of 2 or 3 people. It's a work van.

This has probably not been handled the right way from the beginning - I guess he didn't know about this great place and all the brilliant advice here at the time...

[nosferatu1001]

OK, so you need to be specific. Third hand info isnt great!

Land: when you say "own", be specific. Freehold or Leasehold? I presume the latter but specify.
Assuming Lease, what does the lease say about parking, use of forecourt etc? Go through it line by line. Dont just look for "parking", of course - who knows the precise term they used? You need to go through, line by line, every single clause. Copy out anything usefu;l, as well as anything that could permit them to introduce thse sorts of regulations.

DYL on REAL roads PERMIT loading and unloading. They restrict parking. So if the van was being usedfor loading and unloading, continuously, then on a public road no ticket can be issued. Now on proivtae lnad DYL have NO inherent meaning - only signs can give them meaning. So we would need to see what the signs say. if the signs are unclear / absent, high up and full oof tiny pirint then of course that helps you!

Get teh in-law to post here, idrectly, with you confirming their identity. Much better.

[oldredhen]

Thanks nosferatu, yes I know it's not ideal but I've agreed to see if I can help. I wasn't too specific at first as I didn't want to waste anyone's time with too much detail.

I've asked for a copy of the lease, but meanwhile, I found a copy of an email from the management company which states:

"In response, I would remind you that the Lease of Easement that allows you to use this private road only allows you to pass and repass. The Lease of Easement is attached to the property and as such forms part of your purchase of the property as this road is what gives you access to the property. All property on the estate is subject to this Lease of Easement."

If the signs are now absent but were clearly there at the time, now what? Many are missing as other owners took objection to having the signs fixed to their property. I've found a sign on google further down the road which states:

No parking on roadways at any time
You must park wholly within a marked bay, no parking on roadways /yellow lines/paved/hatched or landscaped areas

Again, I'll ask for a picture of these signs.

ostell: are you sure about leaving the dates/times on photos on the letter and the letter itself, it's not too much identifying info? I can't seem to manage pixlr (it's different to what's showing on the help forum) so have used Windows Paint to obscure details - is this adequate? I'm not too clever or experienced on this type of thing!

[nosferatu1001]

Easiest way to redact info is to use bits of paper over the offending areas, and then scan that in. No way for that to be digitally "undone" at alater date!

OK, so this was on a normal standard road? Not a "forecourt", which would imply some area oin front of the unit akin to a car park?

Signs can be there, but that doesnt mean the temrs they convey are clear, or if those conveyed terms form a contract. So again, we need to know exactly what the signs say. Take a picture.

For example, t6he sign above

1) makes no mention of a contract being offered. It actually FORBIDS parknig on roadways. So how can there be a contract? Offer, acceptance, consideraiton -> the three required elements for a contract! No offer, no contract
2) No mention of any charge being levied
3) The vehicle was not parked, as I have told you, it was loading / unloading. This has its own definition under the TMA2004, and as they do not provide their own definition on the sign of what "parked" means, it is reaosnable to assume - as they used DYLs as well, ANOTHER piece of road furtniture with a well known meaning on public roads - that the normal meaning of parked, which is not the same as the vehicle being used for loading and unloading would prevail.

So 3) is the most interesting. If they accept you were loading / unloading, it was not parked. Therefore the sign does not apply. If they claim you were NOT loading / unloading, but parked., well there was no contract offered, so there cannot be any breach.

[oldredhen]

Thanks nosferatu

Photos being obtained and deeds/lease dug out to be perused.

Meanwhile, I have tried both tinypic and photobucket and one of them (not sure which, as I had opened both to evaluate which was easiest to use) popped a virus onto my computer - cue recorded voice telling me my computer was infected Quick panic, shutting down (ignoring request to phone "Windows" to get them to sort it out) and it all seems OK again but I'm now reluctant to use either of these sites again. Any suggestions? (Yes, my antivirus software is up to date, don't understand how it got through.)

When I manage to upload the first letter (PCN) the photo will show the van outside the property, straddling the DYL which are on the road directly outside the forecourt, on which is a flat bed lorry parked parallel next to it (won't fit on the forecourt at right angles) being loaded. The road is a normal albeit private road. So technically it was "parked" I suppose as it wasn't being loaded itself, but actually just temporarily moved out of the way. It's a logistical nightmare moving the vehicles around to operate there.

[The Rookie]

A pop up page with audio isn’t a virus!

Photbucket is now useless, tinypic works fine or try flikr.

[oldredhen]

Thanks Rookie, sorry my ignorance! I did say I'm not very clever or experienced on this type of thing! My age, gender and hair colour all count against me

[oldredhen]

PCN now available



I've just noticed it says "signage within the car park. By parking within this car park..." - bit of a bog standard letter not really worded properly for this case, but don't suppose it changes anything. I don't think it is what it says on the signs, which clearly says roadways.
Hope to get picture of a sign today, but it won't be the one that was there at the time as it's been removed now, it will be one from down the road.
Just a reminder that the vehicle is a work van, and would have been put in this position by anyone at work who just jumped in to move it from off the forecourt out of the way while the lorry (just about visible in the picture, you are looking at the back of the cab with the flatbed part not really visible) was being loaded. Driver has not been named - probably impossible to tell now it's this long ago.
I also have a copy of an email where the estate management company say CPM observed the vehicle for nearly 30 minutes before taking action. Does the Ibbotson case have any bearing on this?
Thanks everyone.

This post has been edited by oldredhen: Wed, 23 May 2018 - 09:50

[oldredhen]

And the letter from UKCPM responding to the appeal

[ostell]

Their own letter helps your case as they state that the signs say "No Parking at any time" , Therefore they are not offering a contract to park, to do so would be perverse, and therefore if there is no contract there can be no breach of contract.

You've hidden the dates, what were they?

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 22 May 2018 - 07:56

[oldredhen]

Thanks ostell, even this far down the line and after unsuccessful appeal and letters I can use that argument?
Date of "parking" 11.5.16, PCN dated 13.5.16, letter saying appeal refused 15.6.16, formal demand 14.7.16, reply confirming appeal refused 4.8.16 then it went to DRP.

[nosferatu1001]

Of course you booody can
their own appeal is not erally an appeal, you realise that Its an auto reject department. Youre dealing iwth a parasite, why would a parasite cancel a parking charge when there is the slightest chance youll pay?

This is simply rooted in contract law, a contract REQUIRES an OFFER. If I say you CANNOT do something, what have I offered?

[ostell]

Because their is no offer of a contract the only person that could take action is the landowner, and then only for a nominal sum for trespass.

[oldredhen]

Thank you both
So do I respond to the solicitor as they have sent the Letter before Claim, or back to DRP, or back to UKCPM?

[ostell]

You are now talking to the solicitor as they are acting for UKCPM.

Post up the reply for critique before you send. You write as the keeper, with an unknown driver.

[nosferatu1001]

You of course response do the solicitor, as every single LBA thread tells you to.

If you hire someone to work on your behalf, you wouldnt want people corresponding with you directly. Thats what you hired the person to do for you.

[oldredhen]

So here's the parking sign at last, but it's not exactly the same as the one attached to the fence of the property at the time, as checked out on an old google street view. It does look like the main points read the same - No parking on roadways, You must park in bays, If unsure...
There is actually an offer to park, as long as it's in marked bays, I did state this earlier. But the marked bays are in a completely different section of the estate and you have to pay the estate managment company to have an allocated bay. Here, the van is stopped on the roadway outside his own business.
The old sign is titled "Parking Restrictions"
Should I be worrying about the different signage?

And old sign:

Sorry, it's nearly illegible, I couldn't zoom in any closer.