New unexpected ticket

old_dinosaur

Hi Thanks for the info. Will wait with the expectation of rejection.

old_dinosaur

Well here's the rejection and on a Sunday, they must be paid well over the weekend!!
The Appellant appears to claim that although they are the registered keeper of the vehicle they were not the Driver at the time of the parking event. I am satisfied that the Operator is pursuing the Appellant as the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the parking event. In the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the Driver. As the Appellant provides no documentary proof as to their whereabouts I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the Driver as appears to be claimed.

In the initial correspondence the Appellant accepts that the vehicle was parked briefly for the purposes of dropping off a passenger. The signage, which is immediately adjacent to the Appellant’s vehicle, states that parking is provided for ‘authorised vehicles actively loading and unloading only whilst delivering to the commercial tenants of the Heath Parade’ and goes on to state ‘No Customer or Residential Parking’. There is a further sign which clearly states ‘No Customer Parking at Any Time’. The signage also states ‘enforcement in operation 24 hours’ and that by ‘Parking or Remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you, the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms’, the first of which being to pay a parking charge of £100. In large white writing on the road it also states ‘loading only’. It appears to be accepted that the Appellant’s vehicle was not considered an authorised vehicle and that no delivery was being made to a commercial tenant at the site. I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unclear. Despite the Appellant's claims to the contrary I am satisfied that the signage on site complies with industry standards. I am further satisfied that the signage is capable of creating a contract between the Operator and driver.

The Operators signage was clearly visible from the position of parking. Had the driver have left the site immediately upon becoming aware of the signage I may have had a degree more sympathy with their circumstances, however the evidence is that rather than leaving the site immediately the Appellant chose to park their vehicle and allow a the passenger to exit the vehicle. I am satisfied that the signage would have been visible to the driver when entering the bay and from their position of parking. If the driver, on considering the terms, was not happy to accept them, because they felt they were unreasonable, they did not have to accept them. The driver had the option to park elsewhere or alternatively they could choose to stop their vehicle in breach of the advertised terms, remain stationary for a period of time and agree to pay the charge. They chose the latter option.

I am shown images of the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the site for a short period of time in contravention of the clearly displayed terms. Whilst sympathising with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

Someone else on this site wrote back to the parking company to say that they disagreed with the dismissal and then left it, is it worthwhile?

old_dinosaur

Hi. Back again. Had the debt collectors letters.
NOW LBA from solicitors. Have looked at PD and will concoct a letter as there are various bits of info missing. Can they cover themselves by stating "full details of the charges have previously been provided to you within the notices to keeper that have been served (well actually posted) upon you" or are they obliged to write them in their letter? The PD stated 14 days from receipt and I received the letter 6 days after it was dated!

Fruitcake

Hopefully one of the more knowledgeable posters can help, but I suggest you start by reading the link to Bargepole's court guide from Post 1 of the NEWBIES thread, and also purchase the Parking-Prankster's very cheap guide to court from his blog-site.

I believe you acknowledge the claim and state you will be defending this, but you leave the defence box blank.

old_dinosaur

Hi. Sorry is there a template letter to look at somewhere on this site, which I can peruse, but not copy to an IPC PPC as mostly they are about BPA POPLA and PE. THANKS

old_dinosaur

Thanks Fruitcake, but this is a letter requiring acknowledgement and not a form like PE LBCCC.

old_dinosaur

Hi Coupon mad or any other experienced person can I message privately to see where I go next please

Coupon-mad

Yes OK I will clear a space in 5 minutes.

old_dinosaur

Hi Coupon Mad sorry couldn't get back to you the other night as assumed you wouldn't be ab;e to respond quickly. Have sent you a private message and when you clear a space another one in the form of a response letter is waiting to send.
Grateful thanks

old_dinosaur

Hi all. Help needed to prepare case as today received the Claim Form in the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Been given choice of paying now on an admission form or returning an acknowledgement of service form. Still cannot believe that this Company are willing to go to Court for total of 16 seconds but there you go that's life.
First will phone the Court to check it is genuine but obviously all those people who think Parking Control Management do not go to court are wrong. We have several strings to our bow and will contact the first one tomorrow. But any suggestions for further defense would be helpful.