Is this company classed as a small company in the flowchart?

NobleSX

I have the links to the pictures here and it's not good news. THey have significantly changed the signage. The signs are all entirely new (the old being blue and yellow) in a white colour. You can just about make out an old sign under one of the new on a post in one of the pictures. There's also a lot more signs.

Some of the pictures may look the same but are taken in HDR mode or at different ISO speeds to try capture more detail:

i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0938_zpscc600f81.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0937_zps92bfd1f7.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0936_zps5f5475d9.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0935_zps4b28b5d3.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0930_zps53d3f24b.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0933_zps1b5e73bd.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0931_zps94e2c146.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0932_zps4e1298c4.jpg
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IMG_0929_zpsf7324987.jpg

Coupon-mad

http://s206.photobucket.com/user/NobleSX/media/IMG_0938_zpscc600f81.jpg.html

The pics of the sign obscured by a tree branch and the pic of the car park barrier with no signs in view are good to save for your IAS evidence.

What does a sign say, can't see a close up? Wording is key.

I would be appealing as registered keeper saying that you've received their letter and wish to appeal even though the letter doesn't mention your right to the IAS which you firmly believe is a mistake in their document since the IPC Code of Practice requires it, as does the POFA 2012. State that you've checked the area and seen a lack of signs and one on a wall not near any spaces, obscured by a tree, so you require to see their evidence photographs and a copy of their contract to issue PCNs at this site so you can make an informed decision and appeal further to the IAS. State that you cannot be sure who was driving on that occasion and have seen no evidence of their standing at this site nor their photos to show the car in contravention, so any photos taken are required, along with a copy of the contract or site agreement with the landowner, by return with their rejection letter.

Finally remind them that a keeper is allowed to appeal when they first receive the Notice to Keeper (assuming this document is their attempt at such a legal document) and that your appeal is indeed in time. If they contend otherwise and do not send you photos of the car and the signage at the time of the allegation, as well as their landowner contract and the means to appeal to the IAS, you will complain to the DVLA and the IPC immediately about their misleading Notice.


P.S. Quite possibly they only recently changed the signs which is why you want them to show you the sign that was there at the time.

P.P.S. IMHO there is enough wrong with the NTK to win at IAS appeal in the end, if you spell it out like a 'join the dots' picture for a child leaving no wriggle room and enclosing (not now but at IAS stage) a scan of the NTK with all flaws annotated and highlighted & numbered to match what you will be saying to the IAS.

P.P.S. Write your appeal as the registered keeper using the points above. See what I mean about avoiding a template, 'softly softly catchee monkey...'

Dee140157

A close up would be good. I can make out that it does say contractual agreement on it, but that is all.

However it is a good set of examples of badly positioned signage.
Not only are all the signs clearly above easily readable height as seen by the fact they are above the tops of windows and doorways, for at least one of them not only is is obscured by a tree, but you would have to clamber through a clear hedge boundary to be able to read it, this causing potential criminal damage.

Even the one on a pole looks ridiculously high.

The fact that one sign is above the door as you enter into the building would lead me to assume that it is a sign to do with the building as there is nothing obvious from a distance that it is a parking sign.

And as C-M said, no sign at the barrier to indicate parking restrictions are in force beyond the barrier.

IMHO the parking either site of the barrier looks the same. Is the parking this side of the barrier unrestricted?

bazster

Unfortunately you failed to capture the most important detail: what the signs actually say! Of course, this is part of the issue with the signs: they are stupidly small! Nonetheless, we do need to read them.

I can make out "Parking is permitted for", which suggests that the signs are trying to tell you that you are agreeing to pay for doing something that is not permitted, which would be a legal nonsense, but we'd need to see how the wording continues to know for sure if that's what they are saying.

NobleSX

Dee140157 wrote: »

IMHO the parking either site of the barrier looks the same. Is the parking this side of the barrier unrestricted?

The car was parked in a space before the barrier (this side). It's a weird car park. The spaces this side of the barrier are mostly unallocated hence why I beleived no problem - i.e. there are no numbers or other indication of ownership. All spaces on the other side of the barrier are allocated and have numberings.

The sign near the door is new. There was no sign there at all before. You can just about see in one of the pictures where the original sign was stuck to the wall, high up between two windows.


Thanks Coupon-mad for the detailed post. I'll get started on a letter tomorrow.

I'm not sure I'll be able to get a better quality picture of the signs given where they are and how small the writing is, but I'll give it a try on the way back from work today.

Dee140157

It just requires a bit of footwork! Literally I would guess, so park somewhere else and walk up to sign. No one can stop you doing this.

But it seems to me that it is unclear that spaces before the barrier are limited as the barrier indicates the boundary of limited parking!

Coupon-mad

It's really important - could make all the difference as the wording is often open to criticism that could win an appeal at the IAS which is harder than POPLA right now.

NobleSX

I've taken a better picture. It's so small and you can see the blatantly wrong sign underneath that the new sign replaces.

i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/B2292C70-007D-455C-8C8F-8DC4FE52CEF3_zpstegjim5t.jpg

Dee140157

[url]Http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/B2292C70-007D-455C-8C8F-8DC4FE52CEF3_zpstegjim5t.jpg[/url]

Dee140157

And again the amount you are apparerently contracting to agree to pay is buried within the text that is perhaps the 8th size font on the sign. Hardly making it clear and drawing your notice to it despite the yellow on black above it.