LBC and signage

Gouryella

Hi all. I thought it better to start my own thread rather than continue to post in someone elses.

Months went by after I last wrote to the parking company then received the letter I will leave a link to below. There are 2 letters there the one on the left from about 4 or 5 years ago from Court Proceedings I found and the one I received. Both have very similar wording and I doubt any would agree the old one is a LBC. CM said in another thread treat the current letter as a LBC but do you still think the same having seen it?

Regarding the photo of the sign can anyone find fault with it?

Thanks.

hxxp://tinypic.com/3ia4zfgn

Gouryella

I forgot to say re the sign. Is there an invitation to park? Is it trespass? Sign says parking is for permit holders but if you stay anyway you are agreeing to the contractual terms. Confused. Any input would be appreciated.

Fruitcake

Gouryella wrote: »

Hi all. I thought it better to start my own thread rather than continue to post in someone elses.

Months went by after I last wrote to the parking company then received the letter I will leave a link to below. There are 2 letters there the one on the left from about 4 or 5 years ago from Court Proceedings I found and the one I received. Both have very similar wording and I doubt any would agree the old one is a LBC. CM said in another thread treat the current letter as a LBC but do you still think the same having seen it?

Regarding the photo of the sign can anyone find fault with it?

Thanks.

http://tinypic.com/3ia4zfgn

http://tinypic.com/3ia4zfgn

Fruitcake

They look like debt collector letters to me. The last letter says, "may result in court action" not "will result in court action."

They have added in costs they are not allowed to claim. Treat it as an LBC and respond accordingly, pointing out the bits that do not follow pre-action protocol, plus the bit below about the 'phone numbers on both letters and the sign being prohibited.

I got this from another poster. In your case they have used 0870 premium rate numbers but the regulations still apply.

"The 0845 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from BIS, not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014. This can be reported to Trading Standards (via the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506).

The omission of call costs from the sign breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015. This can be reported to ASA via their webform."

Fruitcake

Did the driver get a windscreen ticket or was ANPR used? If the latter, the sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach.

Also, check with the council to see if planning permission was obtained for ANPR cameras, if installed, and for advertising consent for signs over 0.3m2. The latter is a criminal offence if consent was not obtained.

Gouryella

Thanks for your posts Fruitcake. I will do as advised re the letter and adding about the telephone numbers. It was a windscreen ticket. Regarding finding out about advertising consent for the sign I would just phone the council and ask for a specific department? Planning?

As far as I'm aware as I haven't been there in a while the site where the ticket was received is no longer there and the signs are gone. I don't know whether that has any kind of relevance but I did get more pictures before it vanished.

So the wording of the sign doesn't mean this would be trespass not contractual?

Fruitcake

Gouryella wrote: »

Thanks for your posts Fruitcake. I will do as advised re the letter and adding about the telephone numbers. It was a windscreen ticket. Regarding finding out about advertising consent for the sign I would just phone the council and ask for a specific department? Planning?

As far as I'm aware as I haven't been there in a while the site where the ticket was received is no longer there and the signs are gone. I don't know whether that has any kind of relevance but I did get more pictures before it vanished.

Planning department, yes. You would have to ask if consent was in place at the time of the alleged incident.

Did you get a NTK, and if so, did it arrive between 28 and 56 days from the day after the event. In other words, did you get a POFA 2012 compliant NTK.

You haven't shown how this started off, hence the questions. A bit more background about when this happened would help, and a timeline of what happened after, whether you appealed as driver or keeper etcetera, without revealing who was driving of course.

Coupon-mad

Gouryella wrote: »

I forgot to say re the sign. Is there an invitation to park? Is it trespass? Sign says parking is for permit holders but if you stay anyway you are agreeing to the contractual terms. Confused. Any input would be appreciated.

Looks prohibitive to me (no offer to non-permit displaying drivers) and it's very crowded, wordy and similar to the usual UKCPS 'gibberish':

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules_14.html

It's a good comparison with that OLD 'Court Proceedings Ltd' letter which takes me back...the wording is very similar isn't it. However, as UKCPS are not known to use solicitors to litigate - they proceed themselves - and I think the most they send is a '10 day notice of court' (not anything headed 'Letter of Claim', AFAIK) I would take that as a very non-compliant Letter before Claim and would respond. As Fruitcake says:

Treat it as an LBC and respond accordingly, pointing out the bits that do not follow pre-action protocol, plus the bit below about the 'phone numbers on both letters and the sign being prohibitive.

Gouryella

Thanks CM. Was surprised how similar the wording was myself on the Court Proceedings letter. Shame you can't just ignore them any more. Will check those links out later as well.

Just one thing what does the sign being prohibitive mean? That there is no offer to park for non permit holders but if you do park it's contractual? Would it be going to far to say this is trespass and only the landowner can take you to court? Is it too grey an area? Sorry a bit more than one thing.

Coupon-mad

Without any offer and acceptance of terms, there can be no contract. Prohibitive signs explained here in a case won this year:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

'Your' sign only actually offers parking spaces strictly to drivers of cars displaying a permit. Others can only be trespassers as they are NOT offered anything and are instead threatened with a penalty...which the ParkingEye v Beavis case said a parking firm who are not in occupation/ownership of the land, cannot make up some sort of 'charge' for.

Only a landowner can pursue a trespasser for only any damage or a nominal sum in lieu of damage (typically £1).

Gouryella

Fruitcake wrote: »

Planning department, yes. You would have to ask if consent was in place at the time of the alleged incident.

Did you get a NTK, and if so, did it arrive between 28 and 56 days from the day after the event. In other words, did you get a POFA 2012 compliant NTK.

You haven't shown how this started off, hence the questions. A bit more background about when this happened would help, and a timeline of what happened after, whether you appealed as driver or keeper etcetera, without revealing who was driving of course.

Sorry don't know how I missed your post. Yes a NTK did arrive within those days. A bit paranoid of these posts being read by the "darkside". Did not appeal but sent letter asking questions which then lead to an appeal rejection letter. Did not use IAS and told them why suggesting using another ADR. All letters have been written as the registered keeper.