Lbc Gladstones advice pls - Fluttering ticket

Gemwill

Thank you. Mr H's car park is on the same Street but our signs are slightly different. Be lovely if I get the same judge 😊

Gemwill

Claim form from courts arrived today. - all systems go. Will acknowledge and post defence when I've drafted

Gemwill

Ok my first attempt at a draft defence, it needs formatting,spell check etc but also aware I need to do a lot more to my draft.
I have used examples referenced on here and I thank you all. ❤
What do.I need to add/remove/expand on please?

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:

(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

(2).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
This information was provided at appeal on xxx and also to the IAS on xxx a name and serviceable address was provided, Link Parking have improperly obtained the registered keeper details from the DVLA and failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


(3)
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a) No Compliant Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant, when this was queried and further information requested. The response was ‘they believed it to be compliant’ ‘ and that they are not instructed to enter into any further correspondence’. They failed to engage in any further correspondence despite this being part of the Protocol to try and avoid court stages.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings and have issued a vast number of these.

(4)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
-Full particulars of the parking charges
-A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that their authority.
-If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract to provide a breakdown
-To provide a copy of the signs that Link Parking can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well a sign map of the location.

The claimant has not responded.

Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.

(5).
Link Parking are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they
do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

(6)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 as per the NTK issued on xxx to £160 on the next correspondence which was the Letter Before Claim dated xxx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(7)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract, and breaches the IPC code of conduct on a number of factors.
b) The entry signs do not offer any contractual information – Simply Park, a large ‘P’ the name of the location Tremains Court and the 2 payment bands – 2 hours £2 All day £3. There is no reference to any other signs or terms and conditions.
c) The sign which is next to the payment machine, is also inadequate to form a contract, mainly as there is no indication as to who the contract is being entered with only that it is managed on behalf of the owner. Schedule 1 – IPC – Code of Practice The sign must identify you as the ‘creditor’ The name at the top of the sign is again Simply Park and the telephone number is answered by someone stating they are from Simply Park.
e) I am sure the Claimant will point out that the 16th line does state ‘failure to comply will result in an excess charge of £100, this is within the second paragraph and below the instruction to ‘Please check ticket is correct following issue. Overpayment is accepted but no changed issued.’ Which implies that failure to comply with this and you agreeing to pay the higher fee. There is no mention of failure to comply with all terms and conditions.
(f) At the time of the alleged incident, I witnessed no other signs, although have since returned to the site to examine the area for the case and have evidence of smaller prohibitive signs, with different wording, and amendments made to them via stickers placed on a neighbouring boundary walls, which are not obvious to the customer, and the font is below the required sizing (I will be measuring this next week) There is also a new addition to the sign giving the option to pay on line – yet the original sign still states ‘Payment is cash only’
(g)In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(8)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the
parties and no contract was established.

(a) The Defendant denies they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to
the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and
accessible.

(9) If it is believed that a contract was formed that there is a clear argument for frustration of contract.
(a)A ticket was paid for and displayed so all details could be seen, the defendant even checked the ticket before leaving the vehicle, evidence via a witness testimony can be provided by another car user of the car park. There is no knowledge as to when or how the ticket was dislodged and ended face down on the dash board. The ticket gave the defendant a license to park for the day. The ticket is also marked with a reference number on the rear of the ticket which is included within the evidence. I have since been made aware the reference numbers are sequenced and can evidence this further, so whilst it might have taken the officer a few extra minutes to check the reference number it would have demonstrated that at the time of the PCN issued the ticket was valid.
(b) The Fluttering Ticket, there have been a number of cases involving ‘the fluttering ticket’ and I include the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' in my defence, because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in Beavis were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_download...Report_2006.pdf
‘In DB05057D the adjudicator said: “…having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.”
In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: “I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars."
(c) More recently a similar case involving a car park on the same road as this incident and also ‘managed’ by Link Parking C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot
Mr H parked and purchased a valid ticket which he displayed on the dashboard. When he returned to his car he found a parking charge because at some time the ticket had turned upside down. This was the second hearing. The first was adjourned.
The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought.

(d)It is well know that Link Parking have a number of fluttering ticket cases, many for within the same area, it is part of the IPC code of conduct that Predatory tactics must not be used, knowingly issuing tickets which are not fit for purpose would be considered a predatory tactic.
(10)
(a)No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are no contractual and breach the IPC code of conduct with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to
have seen'.


The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Gemwill

Cheeky bump

Fruitcake

It looks pretty good to me, but I am no expert.

I would mention that you made an IAS appeal but the response failed to meet the requirements of the ADR 2015 in that the appeals body (IAS) is owned and run by the solicitors acting for the claimant, and that assessor's name was withheld from the appeal rejection, and does not appear on the IAS website.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

SCHEDULE 3 Regulation 9(4)
Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets

Conflict of interests procedure
4. The body has in place the following procedure in the event that an ADR official declares or is discovered to have a conflict of interest in relation to a domestic dispute or cross-border dispute—

(a) where possible, the ADR official is replaced by another ADR official to handle the particular dispute;

(b) if the ADR official cannot be replaced by another ADR official—
(i) the ADR official must refrain from conducting the alternative dispute resolution procedure, and
(ii) the body must, where possible, propose to the parties that they submit the dispute to another ADR entity which is competent to deal with it;

(c) if the dispute cannot be transferred to another ADR entity, the body—
(i) must inform the parties to the dispute of the circumstances of the conflict of interest,
(ii) must inform the parties to the dispute that they have the right to object to the conflicted person continuing to handle the dispute, and
(iii) can only continue to deal with the dispute if no party to the dispute objects.

Transparency
5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—

(a) its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;

(b) a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;

(c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;



You should also complain to your MP, Mrs May, and Andrew Jones MP, pointing out that the appeals system is supposed to be fair and impartial, which your case shows it most definitely is not. Parking scammers are now using the courts as their own private debt collectors and has increased the courts' workload by a massive amount since the POFA was introduced in 2012. The parking companies actually said the POFA would reduce the court workload, but has in fact done the opposite. Is that a coincidence, or did the scammers lie and hoodwink the UK Government in the process?
Personally I believe it was the latter.
Our MPs need to be told this.

Gemwill

Fruitcake wrote: »

It looks pretty good to me, but I am no expert.

I would mention that you made an IAS appeal but the response failed to meet the requirements of the ADR 2015 in that the appeals body (IAS) is owned and run by the solicitors acting for the claimant, and that assessor's name was withheld from the appeal rejection, and does not appear on the IAS website.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

SCHEDULE 3 Regulation 9(4)
Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets

Conflict of interests procedure
4. The body has in place the following procedure in the event that an ADR official declares or is discovered to have a conflict of interest in relation to a domestic dispute or cross-border dispute—

(a) where possible, the ADR official is replaced by another ADR official to handle the particular dispute;

(b) if the ADR official cannot be replaced by another ADR official—
(i) the ADR official must refrain from conducting the alternative dispute resolution procedure, and
(ii) the body must, where possible, propose to the parties that they submit the dispute to another ADR entity which is competent to deal with it;

(c) if the dispute cannot be transferred to another ADR entity, the body—
(i) must inform the parties to the dispute of the circumstances of the conflict of interest,
(ii) must inform the parties to the dispute that they have the right to object to the conflicted person continuing to handle the dispute, and
(iii) can only continue to deal with the dispute if no party to the dispute objects.

Transparency
5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—

(a) its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;

(b) a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;

(c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;



You should also complain to your MP, Mrs May, and Andrew Jones MP, pointing out that the appeals system is supposed to be fair and impartial, which your case shows it most definitely is not. Parking scammers are now using the courts as their own private debt collectors and has increased the courts' workload by a massive amount since the POFA was introduced in 2012. The parking companies actually said the POFA would reduce the court workload, but has in fact done the opposite. Is that a coincidence, or did the scammers lie and hoodwink the UK Government in the process?
Personally I believe it was the latter.
Our MPs need to be told this.

Fab thank you. I write to my MP a few days ago so we will see ☺

Coupon-mad

Have a read of this thread, which includes wording to add to a defence which talks about losing at IAS and later finding out that it is run by the same people as Gladstones Solicitors so they don't bring this claim with clean hands (that wording is in a reply I wrote later in the thread about his Witness Statement):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5532983

It also includes his defence, and saves us time by showing you how to respond at DQ stage when Gladstones will write some old drivel about the case being 'straightforward' so it should be 'heard on the papers' without a hearing (errrmmm...no).

Gemwill

Is this OK to send please?
Anything need adding, changing etc?
I've added the IAS bit thank you CM and FC
Thanks CM for the signpost to the next steps - I'm getting there 😊
Is it worth putting in the ticket machine time is out by 25 minutes, not sure how it helps my case apart from poor car park management??

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:

(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

(2).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
This information was provided at appeal on xxx and also to the IAS on xxx a name and serviceable address was provided, Link Parking have improperly obtained the registered keeper details from the DVLA and failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


(3)
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a) No Compliant Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant, when this was queried and further information requested. The response was ‘they believed it to be compliant’ ‘ and that they are not instructed to enter into any further correspondence’. They failed to engage in any further correspondence despite this being part of the Protocol to try and avoid court stages, and to reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings and have issued a vast number of these.

(4)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
-Full particulars of the parking charges
-A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that their authority.
-If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract to provide a breakdown
-To provide a copy of the signs that Link Parking can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well a sign map of the location.

The claimant has not responded. All the above are reasonable and proportionate requests to assist in the resolving of this case.

Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions, all parties must disclose all key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

(5) No offer of an independent ADR.
Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Claimant, The Defendant researched the matter online and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s Trade Body, the IPC, so any appeal would have been doomed to failure, as is proved by reports from hundreds of consumers who have not had patently unwarranted PCNs cancelled on appeal.

Research has also revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. This set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. This claimant's Solicitors appear to pay little regard to the 'overriding objective' within pre-court protocols, issuing incoherent copy & paste claims with no due diligence.

Due to this conflict of interests, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands and indeed SIP Parking moved from the British Parking Association Trade Body to the IPC in 2014, due to the fact they were losing most POPLA appeals and the IPC offered a questionable, anonymous 'appeal' service with results which appear to favour their members and put consumers to proof of matters which in a court, would rest squarely as the burden of the Claimant.

(6).
Link Parking are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
d) The name Link Parking is not on the entrance sign or the sign detailing all the terms and conditions next to the payment machine.

(7)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 as per the NTK issued on xxx to £160 on the next correspondence which was the Letter Before Claim dated xxx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8)
(a)No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.


(9)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract, and breaches the IPC code of conduct on a number of factors.
b) The entry signs do not offer any contractual information – Simply Park, a large ‘P’ the name of the location Tremains Court and the 2 payment bands – 2 hours £2 All day £3. There is no reference to any other signs or terms and conditions.
c) The sign which is next to the payment machine, is also inadequate to form a contract, mainly as there is no indication as to who the contract is being entered with only that it is managed on behalf of the owner. Schedule 1 – IPC – Code of Practice The sign must identify you as the ‘creditor’ The name at the top of the sign is again Simply Park and the telephone number is answered by someone stating they are from Simply Park.
e) I am sure the Claimant will point out that the 16th line does state ‘failure to comply will result in an excess charge of £100, this is within the second paragraph and below the instruction to ‘Please check ticket is correct following issue. Overpayment is accepted but no changed issued.’ Which implies that failure to comply with this and you agreeing to pay the higher fee. There is no mention of failure to comply with all terms and conditions.
(f) At the time of the alleged incident, I witnessed no other signs, although have since returned to the site to examine the area for the case and have evidence of smaller prohibitive signs, with different wording, and amendments made to them via stickers placed on a neighbouring boundary walls, which are not obvious to the customer, displayed over 9 feet off the ground (110 inches) and the font is below the required sizing. The penalty charge is in a font measuring 3/8th of an inch. Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet. There is also a new addition to the sign giving the option to pay on line – yet the original sign still states ‘Payment is cash only’
(g)In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(10)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

(a) The Defendant denies they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(11) If it is believed that a contract was formed that there is a clear argument for frustration of contract.
(a)A ticket was paid for and displayed so all details could be seen, the defendant even checked the ticket before leaving the vehicle, evidence via a witness testimony can be provided by another user of the car park. There is no knowledge as to when or how the ticket was dislodged and ended face down on the dash board. The ticket gave the defendant a license to park for the day. The ticket is also marked with a reference number on the rear of the ticket which is included within the evidence. I have since been made aware the reference numbers are sequenced and can evidence this further, so whilst it might have taken the officer a few extra minutes to check the reference number it would have demonstrated that at the time of the PCN issued the ticket was valid.
(b) The Fluttering Ticket, there have been a number of cases involving ‘the fluttering ticket’ and I include the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' in my defence, because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in Beavis were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_download...Report_2006.pdf
‘In DB05057D the adjudicator said: “…having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.”
In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: “I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars."
(c) More recently a similar case involving a car park on the same road as this incident and also ‘managed’ by Link Parking C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot
Mr H parked and purchased a valid ticket which he displayed on the dashboard. When he returned to his car he found a parking charge because at some time the ticket had turned upside down. This was the second hearing. The first was adjourned.
The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought.

(d)It is well know that Link Parking have a number of fluttering ticket cases, many for within the same area, it is part of the IPC code of conduct that Predatory tactics must not be used, knowingly issuing tickets which are not fit for purpose would be considered a predatory tactic.

(12). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are no contractual and breach the IPC code of conduct with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.


The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Coupon-mad

You've copied 'SIP Parking and 2014' whereas this is Link and I can't recall when they jumped ship.

Is it worth putting in the ticket machine time is out by 25 minutes, not sure how it helps my case apart from poor car park management??

Yes I would state something like the signage is not well maintained, nor is the unreliable machine which is 25 minutes wrong so misleads drivers and is indicative of a less than fair and transparent business practice.

Gemwill

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You've copied 'SIP Parking and 2014' whereas this is Link and I can't recall when they jumped ship.


Yes I would state something like the signage is not well maintained, nor is the unreliable machine which is 25 minutes wrong so misleads drivers and is indicative of a less than fair and transparent business practice.

Thank you, my error I thought I was giving examples of who has left BPA I will amend accordingly
Will add about the machibe as well.
Appreciate all of your help 😊

I was at the car park yesterday measuring signs and 2 separate people approached me saying they had PCNs for same issue and just paid as didn't want the hassle of a fight. Makes you think how much money is generated by poor car park management