IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
4year old pcn at JLA and MCOL?
Comments
-
Another letter from bwl to say not upholding the complaint.
There is lots of info in there which I haven't had time to digest yet.
They have said it's breach of contract. My first thought is to reply asking for a copy of the terms and conditions of the contract and what timescale was allowed for the driver to consider them and decide whether or not to accept them.
They are still referring to Elliot v Loake. Wasn't this dismissed by a judge in a small claims court recently? Or is that wishful thinking on my part?
And they have said the LoC is not a pre-action letter (even though the LoC says I am placed on notice that they will commence legal proceedings without further notice).
I will let you know more when I have studied it a bit more (been out on a christmas do so need a clearer head to read it properly)0 -
The illegal signs were changed in April 2015. When further signs were also added.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html0 -
Did you complain to the SRA too? How did that get on.
At this stage, I'd be tempted to call their bluff:
"Since we're at a fundamental disagreement as to the law, I suggest you bring this to a court where a judge will correct you, again."0 -
Yes I did complain but I accidentally sent it to the LO. They acknowledged and sent a case number but a few weeks later replied to say I should complain to bw internal complaints first and the SRA. But I have been very busy that I haven't forwarded it to the SRA yet - but I will. I just want to add the most recent stuff.
I am drafting a reply to bw's response to my complaint. Their reply is just so full of rubbish. I have given you the bones earlier. They don't know when the IAS came into effect or when pofa was implemented. They still insist Elliott v Loake is relevant. They never acknowledge any reference to Henry G. There is no way they would dare bring this to court - unless they are idiots, but then again I've read some of their attempts at court. I find it really interesting that they are prepared to spend so much time and effort and energy on a lost cause. Maybe they realise they have to continue with the charade because if they admit to one person they are backing down it would be all over the internet. They have to pretend to everyone that they have a case. The amount of (wo)man hours they have spent responding to me is well over £150. I am trying to make sure they waste more time and effort. But in a perverse way I am enjoying it all. I note that some threads of pre-pofa have gone quiet. I hope they haven't caved in. It would be good if people just wrote a line to say where they are up to.
Next installment to follow when I have heard back.0 -
Just a quickie.
Is GPEOL still ok to claim? I seem to remember some reference to a case about this where it was thrown out.0 -
Understatement!I seem to remember some reference to a case about this where it was thrown out.
Beavis v ParkingEye, the biggest case ever in the private parking sector. GPEOL all but killed off by the highest court in the land - The Supreme Court.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
I thought there might be another case after Beavis because didn't that say the £100 charge was ok because it was in large print. In the case of Liverpool Airport the charge was in little letters and not obvious.The new signs have the charge a bit more prominent. (And the signs are not legal and still not up to DoT standards.)
I have read loads of posts but have difficulty keeping track because there are so many. I'm curious to know if there has been a gpeol win since Beavis or are people just not attempting it.0 -
Just a quickie.
Is GPEOL still ok to claim? I seem to remember some reference to a case about this where it was thrown out.
Yes, GPEOL is still valid in this case. You will be claiming that the charge is a penalty and unfair consumer term.
In Beavis it was not an unfair consumer term because the motorist had a fair chance to read and understand the term, and it was a fair bargain that the motorist got the valuable consideration of 2 hours free parking for the risk of a £85 charge if they overstayed.
In this case, there is no bargain as parking is not allowed at all, and the motorist does not have a chance to read the terms while driving.
Additionally this is not a breach of contract but a trespass, and therefore only actual costs can be charged, not a random amount.Dedicated to driving up standards in parking0 -
Update.
Now a 5 year old pcn and no signs of any more threats since late last year.
I have read that the airport are trying to rewrite the bye-laws. I suppose until they are lucky enough to be successful with that they will not attempt a court case.
Just interested in any others who are in the same position. Or any other airport pcn's, or any other places with bye-laws.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards