PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UK CPM PCN for parking in visitor's space, No visible signage displaying their terms and conditions
willber92
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 18:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



Hi all,

I would really appreciate some advice on my current situation with UK CPM.

On the 25th November at around 8pm, I visited my friend’s flat and parked in the visitor’s space as he said to, he did not say that I should display a permit nor did I see any signs anywhere to say that it was required.

On the 7th December I then received a PCN in the post from UK CPM for the amount of £100. Their reasoning was ‘Not displaying a valid permit’. The letter included 2 photos of my car (presumably taken by a resident with too much time on their hands) to show it in the space, and one of the dashboard not showing a permit.

They also went on to say ‘The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.’

Rather than appealing, I sent a letter entitled to UK CPM ‘Data Protection Act 1998 – Section 10 Data Subject Notice’ using a template. I also asked my friend to take photos from various angles from the visitor’s space I parked in, to show the complete lack of signage. The letter I sent was as follows:

'I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration mark KG02 HPZ and I have received your PCN number 4011663.

In the issued PCN, you state ‘The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park’.

The driver of the vehicle is not bound to the terms and conditions that you state and is hence not liable to pay a charge, as there was no visible signage depicting terms and conditions anywhere nearby where the alleged contravention occurred. Due to this, the driver was not aware of any such parking restrictions and there was no contract. In the photos you have provided of the vehicle, there is no visible signage. Furthermore, I have provided additional photos on page 2 from the location of the alleged contravention at various angles to show the lack of signage.

As a result, there is no legally-enforceable parking charge and no justification for you to pursue me. You have, therefore, obtained my personal information without reasonable cause. This is a clear breach of data protection principles 1 and 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Your unreasonable and unlawful demand for payment is causing me significant distress and anxiety.

I demand that you immediately cease and desist from processing my personal data, except to inform me that you have complied with this demand. Any further processing of my personal data, including demands for payment or passing my personal data to any third party, will be considered harassment and a flagrant disregard of the DPA, which will be reported to DVLA and to your ATA, and may result in legal action against you for compensation or damages, including Exemplary or Punitive damages.

The DPA requires you to respond to this notice within 21 days to confirm that you have or will comply with my demands, or to explain why you have not or will not comply.

Yours faithfully,’






I have now just opened another letter from them dated 5th January (I have been away so only just received it) , with the title ‘Formal Demand’, which is exactly the same as the initial letter I received, with addition of threatening to increase the charge to £149 in the first instance of further action.

My question now is, should I resend my original letter, seeing as they completely ignored it and didn’t respond within the 21 days that I stated, or should I send a letter to their appeals department to dispute the lack of signage, or simply ignore them as they have ignored me? I am certainly not paying as I feel it’s completely unjust given the lack of signage, and I was honestly completely unaware of the parking restrictions for this reason.

Edit: Have just realised I've missed the 28 day window to appeal to UK CPM, and then in turn missed my chance to appeal through IAS.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for taking the time to read through my lengthy post!

Below is another photo where my friend has circled the nearest sign displaying the terms.



This post has been edited by willber92: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 18:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ManxRed
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 20:23
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,785
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



It's no biggie, the IAS is a sham appeals body made up of the trade body that UK PCM are a member of, and they routinely reject appeals as a matter of course. You would have been advised NOT to appeal to them anyway.

From your photos it seems clear that there was no contract formed with the driver, due to no signs being prominently displayed.

And yes, it was 99% probable that the person who ticketed you was a sad resident who is on a grubby kickback of a tenner for every car he/she 'nabs'.

You will probably receive a load of scary Debt Collector letters, which can be safely ignored, however if you receive a letter that threatens court (and may or may not be titled Letter Before Claim or Letter Before Action), from either UKPCM or a solicitor acting on behalf of them, or an actual court claim, then come back here for advice. This doesn't include threats of court from a Debt Collector, which are worthless and not worth the paper they're printed on.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 09:38
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 20:23) *
It's no biggie, the IAS is a sham appeals body made up of the trade body that UK PCM are a member of, and they routinely reject appeals as a matter of course. You would have been advised NOT to appeal to them anyway.

From your photos it seems clear that there was no contract formed with the driver, due to no signs being prominently displayed.

And yes, it was 99% probable that the person who ticketed you was a sad resident who is on a grubby kickback of a tenner for every car he/she 'nabs'.

You will probably receive a load of scary Debt Collector letters, which can be safely ignored, however if you receive a letter that threatens court (and may or may not be titled Letter Before Claim or Letter Before Action), from either UKPCM or a solicitor acting on behalf of them, or an actual court claim, then come back here for advice. This doesn't include threats of court from a Debt Collector, which are worthless and not worth the paper they're printed on.


Thanks very much for taking the time to read my post and offering some advice. You've certainly put my mind at ease more now knowing at what stage I should take notice.

I read an interesting paragraph on the UK CPM website entitled 'Contract Law'.

'If a driver parks on your land and you have displayed our warning signs correctly, the driver is entering into a contract with you. If they break your parking rules they are 'in breach of contract'.


From this presumably UK CPM actually has no control over the placement of the signs and the housing developer is responsible for it. After reading that I don't think they have a leg to stand on!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 10:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,785
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (willber92 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 09:38) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 20:23) *
It's no biggie, the IAS is a sham appeals body made up of the trade body that UK PCM are a member of, and they routinely reject appeals as a matter of course. You would have been advised NOT to appeal to them anyway.

From your photos it seems clear that there was no contract formed with the driver, due to no signs being prominently displayed.

And yes, it was 99% probable that the person who ticketed you was a sad resident who is on a grubby kickback of a tenner for every car he/she 'nabs'.

You will probably receive a load of scary Debt Collector letters, which can be safely ignored, however if you receive a letter that threatens court (and may or may not be titled Letter Before Claim or Letter Before Action), from either UKPCM or a solicitor acting on behalf of them, or an actual court claim, then come back here for advice. This doesn't include threats of court from a Debt Collector, which are worthless and not worth the paper they're printed on.


Thanks very much for taking the time to read my post and offering some advice. You've certainly put my mind at ease more now knowing at what stage I should take notice.

I read an interesting paragraph on the UK CPM website entitled 'Contract Law'.

'If a driver parks on your land and you have displayed our warning signs correctly, the driver is entering into a contract with you. If they break your parking rules they are 'in breach of contract'.


From this presumably UK CPM actually has no control over the placement of the signs and the housing developer is responsible for it. After reading that I don't think they have a leg to stand on!


If they pursue a court claim, you will obviously need to convince a judge that the driver did not see any signs. With your photos that puts you in a good position. Just beware of them submitting a load of doctored photos to support their claim, which you can rebut if appropriate (e.g. pics taken during the day, when the incident took place at night, pics taken close up but out of context as they are nowhere near where the vehicle parked, etc.)

There may well be other defence points - for example even if you DO get to see a sign, it is badly worded, mistakes in their paperwork preventing them from pursuing the Keeper, so they are limited to pursuing the driver only (who they won't know), and so on.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 12:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 10:41) *
QUOTE (willber92 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 09:38) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 20:23) *
It's no biggie, the IAS is a sham appeals body made up of the trade body that UK PCM are a member of, and they routinely reject appeals as a matter of course. You would have been advised NOT to appeal to them anyway.

From your photos it seems clear that there was no contract formed with the driver, due to no signs being prominently displayed.

And yes, it was 99% probable that the person who ticketed you was a sad resident who is on a grubby kickback of a tenner for every car he/she 'nabs'.

You will probably receive a load of scary Debt Collector letters, which can be safely ignored, however if you receive a letter that threatens court (and may or may not be titled Letter Before Claim or Letter Before Action), from either UKPCM or a solicitor acting on behalf of them, or an actual court claim, then come back here for advice. This doesn't include threats of court from a Debt Collector, which are worthless and not worth the paper they're printed on.


Thanks very much for taking the time to read my post and offering some advice. You've certainly put my mind at ease more now knowing at what stage I should take notice.

I read an interesting paragraph on the UK CPM website entitled 'Contract Law'.

'If a driver parks on your land and you have displayed our warning signs correctly, the driver is entering into a contract with you. If they break your parking rules they are 'in breach of contract'.


From this presumably UK CPM actually has no control over the placement of the signs and the housing developer is responsible for it. After reading that I don't think they have a leg to stand on!


If they pursue a court claim, you will obviously need to convince a judge that the driver did not see any signs. With your photos that puts you in a good position. Just beware of them submitting a load of doctored photos to support their claim, which you can rebut if appropriate (e.g. pics taken during the day, when the incident took place at night, pics taken close up but out of context as they are nowhere near where the vehicle parked, etc.)

There may well be other defence points - for example even if you DO get to see a sign, it is badly worded, mistakes in their paperwork preventing them from pursuing the Keeper, so they are limited to pursuing the driver only (who they won't know), and so on.


Do you think at this stage it could be worth sending my original letter again to their appeals department, demanding a response? I feel that surely if someone actually read that letter and saw the photos of the ridiculous signage, they would understand they wouldn't have a chance in winning and would stop pursuing me, considering the developer was probably responsible for the poor placement and visibility of the signs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adzi
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 12:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 5 Jul 2016
From: Southern UK
Member No.: 85,425



Jumping as currently have an issue with UK CPM too. The biggest pitfall I have found so far is that UK CPM has only been contacted by the Managing Agent and not the landowner/landlord. If this is the case for your friends place it would be worth requesting the contract between MA and UK CPM to see who has signed it. Also primacy of lease etc and all the usual.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117920

This post has been edited by Adzi: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 12:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 12:48
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,785
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (willber92 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 12:28) *
Do you think at this stage it could be worth sending my original letter again to their appeals department, demanding a response? I feel that surely if someone actually read that letter and saw the photos of the ridiculous signage, they would understand they wouldn't have a chance in winning and would stop pursuing me, considering the developer was probably responsible for the poor placement and visibility of the signs.


Sadly, this doesn't work. They know that there is a certain percentage of the population that will eventually crumble and pay if subjected to sufficient threats and demands, and they simply play a numbers game by treating everyone that way, and bank the money of the people who succumb.

Occasionally they will push all the way to a court claim, again to try and make the more hardened victims crumble. If it does get that far, then they haven't got a great record in terms of case victories, certainly where the defendant gets help from this (and other) forums.

That's their business model. Sad, isn't it? Welcome to the world of Private Parking.

This post has been edited by ManxRed: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 12:49


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 15:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



Just wanted to ask for further advice on how to handle the situation. I've received the inevitable letter from Debt Recovery Plus LTD asking me to pay £160, obviously not going to.

I am sending a letter with special delivery though just to reinforce what was said in my first letter that they ignored (I foolishly didn't send the first letter recorded so don't have any proof of it).

Here is what I'm sending:

You issued me with a parking ticket on 25th November 2017 but I believe it was unlawfully issued. I sent a letter to your appeals department on the 19th December 2017 but it was ignored. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:

• There was insufficient signage
The car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. In the photos you provided of the vehicle, there is no visible signage. Furthermore, I have provided photographic evidence on page 2 from the location of the alleged contravention at various angles to show the lack of signage.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Yours faithfully,


Now on this letter from the debt collectors, there is a section called What if you don't think you're liable for this parking charge 'If you're not sure that you're liable, phone us on xxxxxx and we'll look into it. If we don't hear from you. we'll take this to mean that you agree you're liable for it.'

I was considering phoning to simply say that I have just sent another letter to CPM explaining why I am not liable and that I will not be paying it. Or is this best left ignored?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 16:00
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,820
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



DO NOT CONTACT DRP

Especially not wasting money on special delivery - if you had spent five minutes looking into this NOONE sends other than first class, with certificate of posting!

If you have to send anything, to anyone, only send to the parking company.

Just ignore DRP. That section saying you agree that youre liable is complete crap, they know it, and any court would know it. Its just bollocks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 16:39
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 16:00) *
DO NOT CONTACT DRP

Especially not wasting money on special delivery - if you had spent five minutes looking into this NOONE sends other than first class, with certificate of posting!

If you have to send anything, to anyone, only send to the parking company.

Just ignore DRP. That section saying you agree that youre liable is complete crap, they know it, and any court would know it. Its just bollocks.


I sent the letter to UK CPM, not DRP, I was considering phoning DRP not sending a letter, but as you say, think it's best to simply ignore them. I doubt they would reason with me anyway and probably just state that it's their job to recoup the money, so unless UK CPM tell them to back off they will keep hassling me. What jobsworths!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 17:07
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,820
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You never ever ever phone. Ever. Don’t care who, you don’t phone.

Drp are parasites living off parasites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:11
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



Hoping for some fresh advice....after months of hearing nothing and thinking they'd finally given up and realised they had no case, I've come back from holiday to my second letter from Gladstones Solicitors (the last one was around May), claiming that they sent me the same letter dated 10th August, and this was a 'Letter Before Claim'.

It says something to the effect of:

'...we have now been instructed to commence legal action against you to recover the amount (blah blah blah)

We note that you have not settled the debt or provided a valid non reason for payment.

In the event that the outstanding debt is not paid in full, we are instructed to commence legal proceedings. Our client is satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to support this claim and, if necessary, will rely on this evidence in court.

If you believe you have a valid reason for non-payment, we are extending the time in which you are able to respond via the Reply Form by 5th October 2018. A version of the Information Sheet and Reply Form taken from the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims can be completed on our website. Before completing the online Reply Form, you must create a login, for which you will require your reference. Alternatively you can request a paper version.

We refer you to Paragraph 2.1© of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and responsibly.

Please pay or reply before October 5th 2018. Any reply received after this date may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued.'



Hooray, so despite me contacting UK PCM on multiple occasions and explaining the lack of signage and providing evidence to support this, they still think they have sufficient evidence against me, haha!

So my question is.....at this stage should I ignore this? Or do I respond using their online form as they request, or just send a physical letter?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated as obviously the 5th October is just around the corner, I'm just desperate for them to go away now and surely they will if someone actually bothers to read my case/look at the photographic evidence as there's obviously a clear lack of signage and I'm sick of them harassing me now!

This post has been edited by willber92: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:42
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,820
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Of course you dont ignore this. Five minutes research says you do not uignore LBAs. Period.

You can email them as well. Have a search, plenty of LBA resposnes on here.

Expect a claim form no matter what you do. This is purely to show how unreasonable they are being.

Meanwhile DSAR (google it) the parking company. Ask for anything and everything they hold on or about you.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 11:05
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Was the person visited the leasehold owner of the flat?

If so, what does his/her lease say about visitor parking?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 13:58
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 11:42) *
Of course you dont ignore this. Five minutes research says you do not uignore LBAs. Period.

You can email them as well. Have a search, plenty of LBA resposnes on here.

Expect a claim form no matter what you do. This is purely to show how unreasonable they are being.

Meanwhile DSAR (google it) the parking company. Ask for anything and everything they hold on or about you.



Thanks for your response, I've just submitted a response through the Gladstones website. I kept it brief as I feel my explanation is simple and said:

'I dispute the debt because - There was insufficient signage at the car park in question. I have attached photographic evidence from the location of the alleged contravention at various angles to show the lack of signage. I have also attached the 2nd letter I sent to UK CPM dated 9th February 2018, where I denied this charge and supplied the same photographic evidence that I've attached now to show that the driver could not have seen the signage and so no contract was formed.'

Reckon it's worth emailing them also at this stage or just waiting to see their response? I'll look into DSAR for the parking company, thanks.

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 12:05) *
Was the person visited the leasehold owner of the flat?

If so, what does his/her lease say about visitor parking?


I believe he was yes, I've asked him to dig out the lease to see what that wording is so I can begin to build a case if they start court proceedings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 14:24
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,785
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Its pointless emailing evidence to Gladstones, they really don't care if they are onto a loser or not, because THEIR interest in all this is to receive legal fees from the parking company for taking their case to court, regardless of whether they win or lose.

By all means point out to them that their case is hopeless, but the main thing should be to compare what you have received as a Letter Before Claim with the latest guidelines (from the Pre-Action Protocols) on what they should have included with the letter, and point out to them the deficiencies, and the information and documentation they SHOULD now provide in order to comply. Make them jump through hoops, make a judge think (later on, when they get presented with the communications you and they are sending) that YOU are the reasonable one, and THEY are not.

And get a copy of that lease.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 20:47
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:24) *
Its pointless emailing evidence to Gladstones, they really don't care if they are onto a loser or not, because THEIR interest in all this is to receive legal fees from the parking company for taking their case to court, regardless of whether they win or lose.

By all means point out to them that their case is hopeless, but the main thing should be to compare what you have received as a Letter Before Claim with the latest guidelines (from the Pre-Action Protocols) on what they should have included with the letter, and point out to them the deficiencies, and the information and documentation they SHOULD now provide in order to comply. Make them jump through hoops, make a judge think (later on, when they get presented with the communications you and they are sending) that YOU are the reasonable one, and THEY are not.

And get a copy of that lease.


I've disputed the claim through their website, as well as posting a letter recorded delivery which they've now received, as you suggested to point out the (countless!) deficiencies, and lack of documentation or evidence.

I've received a copy of the lease and have searched for 'parking', 'permit', 'visitor' but can't find anything relating to parking.

My friend also said that when they bought the flat (under shared ownership) as a new build around 3 years ago the parking wasn't managed at all, each flat had their own parking space and the visitor spaces were for anyone additional and didn't require a permit. Around a year later, all of the residents received letters saying that management were looking at permit options and for companies to manage it. A lot of residents disputed this but they proceeded regardless without everyone's approval.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 10:00
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,820
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Dont jsut search for those terms
Look for rights over common areas, allocated areas, etc.
Or post here for some help.

Be careful around one poster here, relatively new. They tend to go in a very, very aggressive mode with residential cases and can take you down a route you may not want to go. They are a known entity elsewhere.

They only need 75% approval, HOWEVER they need to have actually performed a real consultation and taken a real accuonting. Silence doesnt count as "yes".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
willber92
post Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 15:39
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,965



So, an update for anyone interested and willing to help!

After receiving yet another Letter Before Claim on the 1st May 2019 (which I ignored this time, as it again prompted me to respond through their website, which I couldn't actually do again as it had already been submitted against that claim number!), I have today received a claim form from the County Court, yippee!

I would really appreciate some guidance on how to construct my defence, but I was simply planning on more or less providing an outline of the timeline of events from my point of view, so that the court can see my attempts to resolve and dispute the PCN to no avail (as they simply ignored absolutely every bit of correspondence I sent), followed by my initial defence more or less that I sent UK CPM in the post, which I've tweaked slightly and written below:

QUOTE
I deny the full amount of the claim, as there was insufficient signage. The car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means that no contract was formed with me as I was not even aware of any parking restrictions. In the photos that UK CPM initially provided of the vehicle in question, there is no visible signage. Furthermore, I have provided photographic evidence from the location of the alleged contravention at various angles to show the lack of signage.


Should I go into further detail to say that the sign with the restrictions on was far further away from the parking space than the required distance of within 15 metres?

I would also like to make a claim against them for the time, stress and anxiety that this has caused me over nearly a 2 year period now, when I am completely innocent and they are at fault for not displaying the signage clearly. Is this advised, and if so then what sort of amounts are realistic to attempt to claim for? Has anyone every been successful in doing this when they are clearly not in the wrong in the first place?

This post has been edited by willber92: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 - 16:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 12:30
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,820
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, that isnt a defence. It shows they have behaved unreasonably

1) Date of Issue please
2) Go ONLINE, TODAY, and acknowlegde the claim. You have 33 days FROM DATE OF ISSUE to email the court your PDF defence.
3) Go to MSE forum -> Newbies thread -> Post 2. Google it. Read it? Bookmark it.
4) Tell us what you found out 9 months ago....see my final post .
5) No, you dont get to claim for time. Thats costs. You could instead clami for misuse of your personal data (assuming you didnt give them it in the first place)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 22nd November 2019 - 18:08
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.