Letter before claim

Kind_Of_Irritated

Good. At the moment my draft has headings at the top of each section - as much for my ease of avoiding duplication and omitting anything important as for the judge's benefit.

Do you think I should add a section which refers to this case and the "classic example of derogation from grant" in the Saeed transcript (to the detriment of residents rights)?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Umkomaas. There are no time limits. Parking only, according to their *forbidding* sign, for permit holders. My issue is that mine was not showing, though I have one, and Link are determined to ignore this.

My query is that the law now says a ten minute grace period applies even in residential car parks. But this begs two questions and I think it is for Link not me to substantiate their reasons for the "charge".

1) They have sent me 5 pics of my car with time-stamps on them. All five were taken within about 45 secs ALL TOGETHER.
2) They have only put on the "charge" ticket ONE moment in time. Not an entrance/remaining/depart LENGTH of time. So if I insist I was there for less than 10 minutes, it would be for them to prove otherwise. No?

Btw the ticket 'Issue Reason 0013' says - "Not clearly displaying a valid permit". Underneath that it says (probably pre-written on ALL their tickets) - "The vehicle was parked on private property in a manner where the driver agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage.".

Umkomaas wrote: »

If there are no timings shown by the PPC (i.e., 2 hours parking allowed but this was overstayed by 9 minutes) then how are you going to argue a period of grace applies?


Well, if you don't, how do you expect others to second guess?

Simple questions. Simple answers required.

For how long was the car parked?
Is there a parking time limit?
If so, how long is it?
Was the car parked beyond the time limit?
How is the parking contravention described on the windscreen ticket/NtK?

Umkomaas

I'm afraid you're snatching at gnats with your current focus on grace period. Its a pointless argument in my opinion. You've got sledgehammers with which to hit your charge; why waste energy with a feather duster?

My query is that the law now says a ten minute grace period applies even in residential car parks.

Which 'law' is that?

Coupon-mad

My query is that the law now says a ten minute grace period applies even in residential car parks.

It doesn't!

Only the BPA CoP attempts to set that as a vague 'rule' (not law) - and anyway, Link are not in the BPA AOS, they are IPC.

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm afraid you're snatching at gnats with your current focus on grace period. Its a pointless argument in my opinion. You've got sledgehammers with which to hit your charge; why waste energy with a feather duster?

I agree.

The defence *could* include one line mentioning that there is no evidence of the IPC Code of Practice being followed in terms of avoiding predatory practices, allowing a grace period before issuing a PCN and in terms of the signs. But it's waaaaay down the defence and almost an afterthought, thrown in just in case a Judge doesn't like the lease agreement 'primacy of contract' not 'derogating from grant' argument.

Certainly nothing to waste any time over at all.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Umkomaas, I believe you are wrong to dismiss that point so flippantly. Every point is worth making if it gives us more weaponry in our armoury.

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm afraid you're snatching at gnats with your current focus on grace period. Its a pointless argument in my opinion. You've got sledgehammers with which to hit your charge; why waste energy with a feather duster?
Which 'law' is that?

Despite the sledge-hammer being used repeatedly in court cases this gang of cowboys are still at it.

I'll get my gnat to hammer in the last nail in their coffin. Their tickets (charges) are illegal. Since 2012 they cannot legally threaten drivers with clamping.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782680

Every would-be contract they depend upon could be thrown out of court.

Now, wouldn't that make my gnat's whiskers twitch, if that were to happen?

Btw, I'll be using the sledge-hammer points too, of course.

Umkomaas

Their tickets (charges) are illegal. Since 2012 they cannot legally threaten drivers with clamping.

Have they threatened clamping?

Nothing illegal in threatening clamping.

Kind_Of_Irritated

OK. Will just throw it in, in case. Doesn't sound as though its application is limited...

The Protection of Freedoms Act makes it an offence to clamp on private land.

<A BPA spokesman also said there may be continuing issues for motorists because of little known by-laws giving landowners the right to manage their parking in any way they choose. These include some car parks at railway stations, airports and port authorities.And the AA has concerns that rogue operators may begin issuing bogus parking tickets on private land.>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782680

Umkomaas

Illegal to clamp (in many cases). Not illegal to threaten clamping.

beamerguy

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

OK. Will just throw it in, in case. Doesn't sound as though its application is limited...

The Protection of Freedoms Act makes it an offence to clamp on private land.

<A BPA spokesman also said there may be continuing issues for motorists because of little known by-laws giving landowners the right to manage their parking in any way they choose. These include some car parks at railway stations, airports and port authorities.And the AA has concerns that rogue operators may begin issuing bogus parking tickets on private land.>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782680

I am not understanding why you are referring to old news, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then

Kind_Of_Irritated

It's on the back of the permit. I thought I'd written that in this thread earlier.

"If this permit is not displayed in the correct manner as stated above your vehicle will be clamped and charged a release fee".

Must say I am surprised threatening clamping is not illegal, since POFA, 2012 (The Protection of Freedoms Act makes it an offence to clamp on private land.)

Sorry if I am mistaken in thinking this is quite a big deal.

Gnat

Umkomaas wrote: »

Have they threatened clamping?

Nothing illegal in threatening clamping.