PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN for Wharf retail park Godalming
WhizzKid
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



A PCN has been sent to my address from Premier Park

I have requested that they send me with proof of their right to invoice me and provision of a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name.

Let's see where we go with this. They are awaiting the Protection of Freedoms Act keeper/driver deadline they have before they will deem to reply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 18:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (WhizzKid @ Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 19:24) *
Let's see where we go with this.

They won't supply what you're asking for that's for sure.

QUOTE (WhizzKid @ Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 19:24) *
They are awaiting the Protection of Freedoms Act keeper/driver deadline they have before they will deem to reply.

Eh? Perhaps you will want to explain what's happened - was there a PCN on the car or postal notice first?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 18:31


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 19:28
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



PCN received through post. Sent to me as the registered keeper. Care parked for 20 minutes more than permissible they say. Photo of car entering and exiting property supplied.

I am sure they won't supply what is requested. But seems reasonable for them to prove they have a right to 'invoice'.

I have read through these threads extensively. Interesting! However very happy to be guided in further steps. Will await eventual reply after their deadline to supply the driver details. I have not refused to do so, but simply asked for their right to ask for it. Apparently they will not correspond until after the deadline if those details are not supplied.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 19:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Have they complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act to hold the keeper liable?


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 22:03
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Will await eventual reply after their deadline to supply the driver details.

If this is just PP's usual letter they send after an appeal is lodged, you just ignore that and wait for the POPLA code.

You will see that on all the other PP threads, it's a standard letter to ignore, if you have appealed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 19:03
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



POPLA code ahoy.

So, I have scanned other areas of the forum for starters of course.

A visit to the car park occurred.
A shop was visited.
The car was then moved 100m to the other end of the car park without leaving the premises to re-park.
A further shop was visited.
Car then left.

PCN sent to me as the keeper. Entry/exit timestamped photos provided. Timings stating overstay of permissible 2-hour period.

I have submitted an appeal that is essentially the same as this one. It is the same location and everything else is the same. I have been communicated with as the registered keeper.

I have removed the details regarding signage as I do not live close enough to return to the area to take photographs to support my claims, and the POPLA ruling does not rely on these. In all other respects communications from them have been the same as in this case.

Fingers now crossed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 19:20
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Why take out signage, you should have stated it didn’t comply with the CoP and the onus was then on them to prove it did.

Why did you rush into sending the appeal, would be much better to share it for a review first.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 21:02
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 19:20) *
Why take out signage, you should have stated it didn’t comply with the CoP and the onus was then on them to prove it did.

Why did you rush into sending the appeal, would be much better to share it for a review first.


The original appeal by the other user was supported by many photographs to back the case up. I don't have such photographs. The wording depended on those photographs and I wasn't going to go through the process when the appeal should win on the grounds of the right to invoice anyway.

There wasn't any rushing. I have agonised for hours checking the precedents here. I can see no reason why I shouldn't succeed again in this location for the same reasons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:33
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



The appeal should win on the grounds of the right to invoice?

What rights do you think they need? Are you referring to the contract with the landholder? POPLA don't always uphold appeals on that point, depending on what the PPC sends in their POPLA bundle (might be a redacted copy of their agreement, which they won't share with you upfront, but that doesn't mean they don't have one), or it might be a witness statement from the landholder. Are you SURE they won't be able to produce either of these?


--------------------
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
WhizzKid
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:46
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



I am simply using the recipe used by a recent successful appellant against PP at the same site. Should I assume that the case will be treated so very differently to the last?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:52
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Never assume anything!

I'd hit them with every potential appeal point going.


--------------------
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
Redivi
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 11:59
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Premier puts a lot of effort into POPLA evidence packs

Its contracts often include the authority to take legal action
If so, they will be provided

If not, most POPLA assessors will accept a witness statement that they are authorised to operate and recover charges "in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice"

For a short time, POPLA was cautious of accepting Premier's witness statements after they submitted a number of forgeries
That's no longer the case and the chances of a successful appeal based on the right to invoice are very slim

You need to focus your appeal on the signs

Wait for other views but if a sign-based appeal isn't possible it might be better not to make the POPLA appeal and simply ignore further correspondence

Premier is quite litigious and you don't want to hand them a POPLA decision that they can wave in court
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 12:14
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



QUOTE (WhizzKid @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 12:46) *
I am simply using the recipe used by a recent successful appellant against PP at the same site. Should I assume that the case will be treated so very differently to the last?

There's every reason to believe that the case will be treated differently

POPLA assessors are not legally qualified and are not consistent with their decisions
Some are very biassed in favour of the parking companies and even invent reasons to reject an appeal that the company hasn't thought of
Previous decisions about a car park are not referred to and are irrelevant

POPLA has confirmed to me that assessors only decide if the Parking Notice was issued correctly
A diminishing few of them consider whether the payment is legally owed
I've received one decision where the assessor has actually stated that legal arguments are outside the remit of the assessment

They therefore only need to know that the parking company is authorised to operate at the location
They're not interested in whether it can recover the payment in court

Not a surprise
When it took on the contract, Ombudsman Services, the new POPLA provider didn't even know it was running an appeal service, not another ombudsman service
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 17:36
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



Well, rash or not ( I was going away and had to sort it out promptly, regrettably), I have had a reply from POPLA with Premier Park's submitted reply.

The details of the appeal I submitted was this:


I write to submit to POPLA the details of my dispute with Premier Park Limited (“Premier Park”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued on 2/03/2018 in respect of an alleged breach of terms and conditions of parking at The Wharf Retail Park, Godalming on 24/02/2018.

I confirm that I am this vehicle’s keeper for the purposes of the corresponding definition under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I set out why I am not liable for this parking charge as follows:

1. Premier Park failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
3. Premier Park has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
4. The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.
5. The vehicle is not photographed within the car park.
6. Non-liability of Registered Keeper

Please see attached file for explanations of these items.



1. Premier failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in compliance with the requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It merely stated the times which the vehicle entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to the start and end of the period of parking.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) ©, the Notice to Keeper did not describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the parking charges arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable. The Notice to Keeper merely states the reason for the issue of the PCN as being “Over Stay”; this description is inadequate insofar as it fails to specify the actual length of time that drivers are permitted to stay in the car park.

• On the PCN, it states: “We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle.”

This paragraph is in contradiction to the aforementioned Act which in part states (para 9): The notice must –
(2)(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(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;

Consequently, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may determine that Premier’s claim is invalid.


2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


3. No Authority

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. I do not believe that Premier Park has landowner’s authority and, as such, the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

• Section 7.1 states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

• Section 7.2 states: “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”

• Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.”


I do not believe that Premier has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I therefore require Premier to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract is compliant with Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and permits Premier to make contracts with drivers in its own right, providing it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).


4. The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

• ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

• 21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

Premier Park fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Premier Park place signs too high to see on arrival, and on a hazardous bend, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'.

I say that Premier Park have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Premier Park present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Premier Park to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Premier Park to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised with the actual time of day.

I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

5. The vehicle is not photographed within the car park.

The photographic evidence supplied by Premier Park shows the vehicle on an unidentified two-lane road. The vehicle is not shown adjacent to any signage or indeed, within a car park. It therefore can not be assumed that these photographs are at the entrance to any car park, let alone the one alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice. It also can not be assumed that the vehicle entered the car park within seconds, or in fact at all.

Therefore, the timings shown on the ANPR cameras (already in dispute as to their accuracy in Point 4) are wholly inadequate as any evidence of that vehicle being parked IN the alleged car park for the alleged time. There is also no photographic evidence to show how full the car park was and whether a driver would require extra time to simply find an available parking space.

6. Non-liability of Registered Keeper

As the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, I can not be held liable for the charges as these are the result of actions by the driver. Premier Park have not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such, cannot hold the Keeper liable.


This concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Premier Park fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in all of the points highlighted above. I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.


The reply is attached as a PDF file here. I have redacted any details other than timings. Attached File  Edited_response_Redacted.pdf ( 1.56MB ) Number of downloads: 135
If I have missed anything to remove, then do let me know!

We can see the contract has already been heavily redacted.

I am of course going to peruse this, but would dearly value any thoughts from those already more experienced in these matters. I am also bracing myself for a jolly good roasting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 17:45
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I can't see anywhere in that contract the right to issue pcn in their name, to offer contacts in their own name, not to take to court in their own name. A clear breach of the requirements of the BPA code of practice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 08:48
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



Would a response such as this be reasonable then?

"Since the initial PCN has been issued I have requested Premier Park's proof that they are able to invoice me. My request for this in the POPLA response has been met with a copy of the contract they hold with the Landlord. By agreeing to operate under the code of the British Parking Association (BPA) they agree to abide by its code of practice. Section 7 of the currently applicable code states that:

If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code
of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.


The contract supplied by Premier Park does not indicate permission from the landowner that Premier Park has permission to issue a PCN in their name, to offer contracts in their own name, nor to take to court in their own name. This is a breach of the BPA code, and I continue to assert that Premier Park, in breaking the code has no right to pursue me as the registered keeper in this matter.

Thanks for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:10
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



They have no right to pursue ANYONE, let alone a Keeper.

Did you also review the cotnract? I coudlnt see it, doesnt mean it isnt there!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:19
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



A copy of the contract is embedded towards the bottom of my big post above. Have a look.

Do you think that my response is sufficient to rebut the appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:23
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



SHockingly enough I know where it is, given I told YOU the clause wasnt there!

What I meant was, ****I*** could not see that *the clause* was in the contract. Not that I coudl not see the contract.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhizzKid
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:43
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,138



My apologies for that misunderstanding.


In 6.1 it says that "The Landlord confirmslhat the Landlord's Representitive has full authority to Issue any instruction on behalf of the Landlord"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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, 29th March 2024 - 12:39
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here