PCM Signage Question |
PCM Signage Question |
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 15:24
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 39 Joined: 2 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,180 |
Hi
Could anyone comment on the validity of this sign. https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/84/wb7ej1.jpg Thanks Chris |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 15:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 15:48
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
Its validity depends largely upon the circumstances of each individual driver. If you (as register keeper) have a live case against you and/or the driver, then we can provide good advice once you tell us the full circumstances.
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 15:50
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Some may argue it's a 'forbidding' sign as it doesn't offer a contract to non-permit holders.
Personally, I think the core term (£100) is buried! (The signs in Beavis had this much much clearer) -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 20:56
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
I would say forbidding as well as there is no offer of a contract to park for non permit holders
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 21:21
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
Except of course "forbidding" doesn't help if you have a permit but merely forgot to display it. In which case the important thing is whether you had a pre-existing right to use the space which meant that the offer made by the sign didn't offer anything and therefore wouldn't have been accepted.
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 10:27
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 39 Joined: 2 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,180 |
Slightly more information
Driver stopped briefly to assist a disabled passenger into the property. Lease on property restricts parking save for the disabled. PCN was deficient eg did not state the period of parking. Driver appealed however PCM chose to completely ignore the appeal apparently because they could not find the (valid) service address given on google and assumed it was therefore made up. I received NtK – which again was deficient eg creditor not stated and no period of parking given. Requested that PCM stop processing my personal details which they had no cause to obtain as driver had appealed. They refused. Now with Gladstones who wont state whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper. I understand their difficulty firstly they have no evidence that I was the driver (not surprising as I wasn’t) and if they choose to pursue me as driver they would have to explain why PCM obtained my details as keeper. (Their current argument is that as keeper PCM avers that I was the driver). Similarly if they pursue me as keeper they have to explain why they ignored the driver’s appeal and obtained and processed my details as keeper. Not too bothered about this being progressed as believe I have them on the PCN and NtK deficiencies, loading/unloading not parking, any parking contract could not take precedence over terms of the lease. Just wanted views on the signage as a potential additional argument.[/size][/size] |
|
|
Wed, 28 Aug 2019 - 10:32
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I don't think you understand Gladstones difficulty, their main one is that right now they have no paperwork at all, the roboclaims process involves using just the barest details to raise a claim and that's all they will have until it gets nearer going to court, you know more than them right now.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 29 Aug 2019 - 19:55
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
Driver appealed however PCM chose to completely ignore the appeal apparently because they could not find the (valid) service address given on google and assumed it was therefore made up. How did the driver appeal? Email? Post? Was there proof of appeal being sent? Is there evidence of it having been received? Is there any basis for your theory of why the appeal was ignored? What I am getting at is could PCM never have received the appeal? If that is the case, then that's why you got the NtK (and could at that point have given PCM the name and address of the driver if that was the route being gone down anyway). If you know they got the driver's appeal, then there's a clear DPA breach going on which you could pursue. But you have to know the facts. Best way to do that is a SAR to PCM. Maybe the driver should do one, too, as PCM may not release information about the driver's appeal if they have it. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:51 |