DEAL court claim received

enfield_freddy

can you scan , or photo the coop letter and host it?


PM sent

Parking-Prankster

Email me the letter from the co-op and I will blog it. Seems very funny for the co-op to be doing this. Perhaps it was a 'deal' that if CEL dropped all cases against co-op employees, then the co-op would write that letter


[EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]

songofsixpence

Thank you enfield freddy and Parking Prankster, I have emailed you with photos of the letter.

henrik777

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

Email me the letter from the co-op and I will blog it. Seems very funny for the co-op to be doing this. Perhaps it was a 'deal' that if CEL dropped all cases against co-op employees, then the co-op would write that letter


[EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]

Happened in another case elsewhere too.

Marktheshark

Have you considered turning the tables, I would say you have quite a good case for bringing a claim for Harassment damages.

enfield_freddy

photo link here


click to view:


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM1.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM2.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM3.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM4.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM5.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM6.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM7.JPG


http://www.theterminalhut.com/public/SAM8.JPG




lets see what the pranky thinks the implication of this letter is ,

Umkomaas

This may be a trade-off for not pursuing Co-op employees their PCNs. However, that letter in no way reflects the requirements of the BPA CoP in the context of 'authority'.

7.1 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) before you can start operating on the land in question.Theauthorisationmustgiveyoutheauthority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.
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.
The written authorisation must also set out:
the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcementoperations,includinganyrestrictionsonhours of operation
enforcement
who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Our compliance team are responsible for making sure that you follow the Code. If the team give you reasonable notice, you must allow our appointed manager to inspect the landowner’s written authorisation.
6.9 We will inform the DVLA immediately if you are suspended or expelled from membership, or if your non- compliance with the Code is sufficiently serious.
Written authorisation of the landowner
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and

Excuse formatting - direct copy and paste from CoP!

enfield_freddy

closer to this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8ToW7sLjfQ8/VLFcw3n-SpI/AAAAAAAAC-w/M-bkp883b-8/s1600/coopauth.jpg


I believe the OP has a similarly worded docci , and the coop one was added for "effect"

Parking-Prankster

Several people have now contacted me. I have emailed Mr Jones of the Co-op for his take on the matter.


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/have-to-co-op-cut-deal-with-civil.html


Perhaps I have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

enfield_freddy

perhaps not , after reading the linked page , I look forward to his reply ,