Planning issue re Parking Ticket

mysterywoman10

Update

I returned to the store today as I was meeting friends for breakfast in the pub again.

The Manager came straight down! With a copy of an email he had from the Car Park Operations Manager for the country. So I have his name

Basically they had pleaded I was a loyal customer etc. and his reply was and this really annoys me "if first offence" Yes.

Anyway I had a long chat with the Manager about the whole issue and he obviously powerless to do anything about the "parking eye" said he wished they didn't have it. He also now knows if he ever gets a "charge" anywhere else personally what his rights are.

The Manager of the pub and I are now in email contact. I was also in the pub with two disabled people who are concerned they can't park in the disabled spaces if they are not going into the store.

I had drafted a soft appeal to the PPC last night, well I wouldn't call it soft and I think I will still send it out of principle once I have full email confirmation from the store.

Next is Planning on the breaches of the planning decision.

bod1467

Yes. Still send the appeal, as it isn't closed until the PPC confirm it.

Redx

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Can you give me a link to this evidence please. Why would someone park for 6 hours in a shopping area if they didn't need to? Surely they must be doing something in that time in the place they are in?

Yes they make do, but they don't shop in the same way and they will go for priority items rather than visiting a restaurant/pub/coffee shop as well and or window shopping. Or not bother to try on the thing they might have bought.

I would be very interested to see this information and how it relates to business turnover etc. and this policy.

Because I must be very dumb I can't see in the policy where it states reducing parking times aides the policy.

this is exactly what happened last saturday when my relatives again visited the same retail park in my thread here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4827711

instead of going in many shops and having a meal afterwards , they went in less shops and didnt bother with a meal due to the time constraints and so that retail park definitely lost business as a result

I think these morons who sit in their ivory towers with allocated car parking spaces and who dont live in the real world should be made to use common sense instead of forcing legitimate shoppers into making rash decisions based on parking rather than shopping and entertainment and enjoyment

the point here being there should be less red tape, not more , keep it simple STUPID and lets have less interference whilst we go about our lawful business, this can be seen in the posts about those lakeland car parks where it seems PE have been kicked out and common sense is going to prevail

mysterywoman10

Everyone was behind it in the pub that's for sure its become very popular as a breakfast and lunch for lets say more mature ladies.

And to top it all the staff are parking on double yellow lines down a side ally with permits that have made themselves! So obviously they are not happy either because they could be ticketed by a traffic warden. So the whole problem the development was supposed to solve has been made worse!

I'm furious with Morrisons (not the local store) but the email a) gives away parking managers mobile number, his name and the direct email they have with the parking company. So it clearly shows these big supermarkets are not very innocent at all. All they care about is their business. I'm going to try and get the original planning documents for when it was Safeways because I suspect as it was free parking to start off with again it was for the benefit of the District Centre.

My soft appeal only a draft what do you think? I'll put in all the reference numbers etc obviously before I sent it.

Dear

Further to your letterdated 20/11/13 received on 22/11/13 which appears to be some kind of invoice/chargefor payment for the vehicle registered in my name for parking in a free carpark at Morrison’s in ****** on the 14th November 2013 allegedlybetween 10.50 and 14.37 hours.


The vehicle’s driver did not enter into acivil contract with yourselves, Morrison’s or anyone else for that matter,because the area in which it was parked has no signage that you state in yourletter is present. The area in which it was parked is the extension to the car park which was built for the purpose ofproviding parking for the patrons and staff of the recently completely publichouse the **** and as described in the planning application/decision to enhancegeneral parking for ***** District Centre in addition to Morrison’s customers. Thereis no signage of any kind in this area of the car park relating to your companyof parking restrictions and/or charges. So therefore not BPA compliant atall.

The driver has been to visit the area sinceand photographed the area clearly showing no signs are present and I willproduce it in evidence if you pursue or harass me any further. Thissection of the car park is not for the use of just Morrison’s customers as stated on your other signs inthe rest of the car park or entrance. None of which are remotely visible from this area, the nearest signfaces in the opposite direction facing the store and is well over 50 feet fromwhere the vehicle was parked by the driver.

In addition if you do notcancel this invoice/charge on the above grounds I will require evidence fromyourselves that your cameras are fully APRC compliant, records of maintenance,accuracy, calibration etc as the times seem inconsistent with the driver’srecollection of times. There is no dateor time stamp on the actual scanned photographs on your invoice either.

A copy of your contract with the landowner ofthe land on which the vehicle wasparked will also be required please. It was parked by the newly improved pedestrian assess which again formedpart of the improved access to the public house and ****** DistrictCentre. The disabled spaces in front ofthe ***** in the said carpark are planned in for this purpose as well.

Finally the money you are trying to obtainfrom me is not representative in any way of any losses that could (if a civil contract had even beenentered into) possibly have occurred to the Landowner as the rest ofthe car park is a free car park so no loss to Morrison’s or any other potential landowner or business. Both companies received business from thedriver on the day and receipts are available. Furthermore the opposite applies yourcompanies’ practices could be deemed to be causing loses to JD Wetherspoons whohave a tenancy with the owner of the building and the land adjacent bydiscouraging trade to their Restaurant/Public House.

Please send me a POPLAcode if you are unwilling to cancel this charge/invoice on the grounds I havehighlighted above. The driver has spoken to the Manager of Morrisons and has a copy of an email stating the charge should be cancelled and a copy was forwarded to yourselves.

I look forward toreceiving your cancellation invoice in due course and hope your company takesthe sensible option does not waste anymore of mine or your time in this matteras no civil contract ever existed in the first place between the driver thelandowner(s) or indeed yourselves.

Thank you in anticipationof your prompt attention in this matter.

Yours sincerely

mysterywoman10

Sorry about lack of spaces not sure what happen in cut and paste and in a rush as off out in a bit

Coupon-mad

Add a notification about your intention to make a claim against them:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85641

So as suggested there by BikerPaul, add:

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you because your case is wholly without merit and vexatious. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. and the court rate for unrepresented persons is £18 per hour. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.







I think we should do this every time.

I also feel we should encourage people to sue the Supermarkets/landowners for the actions of their agents once such epic rubbish is cancelled - because I think they will mainly settle out of court and soon learn a lesson about getting into bed with PPCs.

mysterywoman10

Thanks I will do that

Just back from a trip to the Theatre, nightmare with parking lol so could be back again with another case

I can see how pursuing damages could deter them from getting in bed with the PPC's but I do wonder how many people will do it.

Most people believe they have to pay and do, my friend re tonights parking has paid two in the last few months. The woman at the machine was "oh my god if you don't pay you will get done".

The only way to really stop it is by a much higher ruling beyond the County Courts has this been considered in the anti PPC groups?

bod1467

It has been considered. The problem is in getting a PPC to go beyond small claims - they won't because they know they'll probably lose, set a precedent and destroy their whole industry ... none of them want to be the first to take that risk.

nigelbb

bod1467 wrote: »

It has been considered. The problem is in getting a PPC to go beyond small claims - they won't because they know they'll probably lose, set a precedent and destroy their whole industry ... none of them want to be the first to take that risk.

There have been several cases of motorists succesfully appealing to a higher court but AFAIK there has never been a case of a PPC appealing for exactly this reason. A defeat in a court of record would set a precedent that would bring the whole pack of cards tumbling down.

mysterywoman10

I was thinking more along the lines of taking the DVLC to court.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85705&st=0#entry898399