Parking charge notice from London Parking Solutions |
Parking charge notice from London Parking Solutions |
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 - 19:51
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
So this Thursday the driver got a letter in the mail with a Parking charge notice from London Parking Solutions and was really ******* confused. The location was the public parking lot that he always parks, he went outside in the parking lot and saw new signs on the garage doors, so he went and moved his car on the sidewalk and then paid the charge. Apparently the lot is no longer public and today he got 3 more parking charge notices starting from 11/07/2019 to 14/07/2019 and he thinks he will recive 3 more on Monday. The first one that he got in the mail was on 18/07/09 with the date parking event on 11/07/2019 and the notice was posted on 15/072019.
The thing is he had no idea of the Parking charge notice, he had nothing on the windshield, no warning no nothing and is not just him, all the people that parked there had the same thing. And the lot has no marked bays. the driver doen't want to pay 60£ x3 plus the other 3 that he will most likely get in the mail on Monday. Can someone advise? I will really appreciate it. Thank you. This is the lot This post has been edited by Damabiath: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 07:48 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 - 19:51
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 - 20:16
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So post up a copy of the PCN , suitably redacted.
Edit your post so that the identity if the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver......." etc |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 11:47
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 16:24
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
The proofs they have on the website when the driver goes to the site to see the PCN
Apparently the driver is not the only one mad about this whole situation, somebody vandalized all the signs. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 16:52
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So what are the signs saying? It looks like there is a choice of 3
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 17:06
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
|
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 17:14
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So the signage is prohibiting, it is offering parking to permit holders only so non permit holders are not offered a contract to oark hence there can be no breach of a non existant contract. To claim a contract existed when it is specifically banned is perverse.
Let's see what the other signs are saying |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 17:23
Post
#8
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
So the signage is prohibiting, it is offering parking to permit holders only so non permit holders are not offered a contract to oark hence there can be no breach of a non existant contract. To claim a contract existed when it is specifically banned is perverse. Let's see what the other signs are saying The other green sign is for the garage. They have been there for as long as i remember . |
|
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 - 21:18
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Yet again a prohibiting sign therefore there is no contract to oark. The best that could be claimed would be by the landholders for nominal trespass.
Is somebody trying to say the other signs do not apply. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 - 16:24
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
Yet again a prohibiting sign therefore there is no contract to oark. The best that could be claimed would be by the landholders for nominal trespass. Is somebody trying to say the other signs do not apply. So how would the driver phrase the appeal ? He has 8 days left to pay de 3x60£ after that it will be 3x100£. If the appeal is not going to work he wold rather pay the 180£ than the 300£. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 - 19:21
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
The driver never does anything. Only the keeper.
Point out that there are multiple signs, with different entities, and so there is a confusion as to who, if anyone, any contract is with. Also, no contract is offered by any sign. All together there is no offered contract,,none was accepted or even seen, and Vine v WAltham Forest dictates that a driver is this not bound. Cancel and go away as you are misusing the keeper data. |
|
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 - 21:00
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,881 |
The driver never does anything. Only the keeper. Point out that there are multiple signs, with different entities, and so there is a confusion as to who, if anyone, any contract is with. Also, no contract is offered by any sign. All together there is no offered contract,,none was accepted or even seen, and Vine v WAltham Forest dictates that a driver is this not bound. Cancel and go away as you are misusing the keeper data. Is there any point in appealing on their website? I would assume it would be rejected instantly. Since it belongs to them and they are the ones to decide. So sould the keeper just wait until he gets a letter to court.....or.....what. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 - 08:24
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
How many threads have you read?
YOure literally asking nothing new Yes, you appeal. AS KEEPER. The driver does absolutely nothing whatsoever. |
|
|
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 - 08:57
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
POFA 9 (2) f) is not present in the form required.
POFA 9 (2) (a) no period of parking specified. POFA 9 (2) (b) stating driver is liable is not there Multiple POFA fails as well as multiple versions of prohibiting signs. Your appeal will be rejected and it's not worth appealing to the IAS so it's wait and see what they do next. Basically the driver had a choice of signs, which one is valid and all are prohibiting. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:54 |