IAS APPEAL....feedback appreciated

Southernsoftie_jo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But you can change the date backwards on GSV, to see older images.

As far as I can gather, the flats/car park had not long been built when my car made a visit, so there are no recent images on GSV to refer to.

Coupon-mad

I'm confused. You want older images, as your thread started over 2 years ago.

What car park/road was this and which town, can you show us what you are seeing on GSV (a shared short URL?)

Southernsoftie_jo

https://ibb.co/C0yXs2q

This shows the situation with crossing the mini roundabout onto private land, and how this is confusing to a driver. But as the site wasn't built when this photo was taken, it doesn't show the signage that existed when the incident occurred not long after the flats were built.

Location was King Street Leighton Buzzard, car parked on Manarch Way which is the (apparently) private bit of road

The image on GSV are old, they don't reflect the current site in that the flats, road and parking areas have now been built

[Deleted User]

It's thin, but....

Given what is left of the sign, it's by no means clear that visitors in visitors spots had to display permits at all.

The info relating to permits appears to refer to marked bays. By definition visitors wouldn't have permits of their own.

Southernsoftie_jo

Johnersh wrote: »

It's thin, but....

Given what is left of the sign, it's by no means clear that visitors in visitors spots had to display permits at all.

The info relating to permits appears to refer to marked bays. By definition visitors wouldn't have permits of their own.

I presumed they meant visitors permit, for a visitors bay, but interesting take on the wording. I'll factor that into the defence I think. Either way, not clear, no contract, no case imo!

Southernsoftie_jo

I've added this, any comments please? I'm no Lawyer! Just a Mum trying her best to fight these con artists!!!! Too wordy?

The defendant assumes, following receipt of prior communication from the Claimant that the 'breach of terms of parking' relates to failure to display a valid permit, however as stated the Particulars of Claim does not reference this point. The defendant asserts that the Vehicle was parked momentarily in a designated 'Visitors' bay. The only reference to parking terms for Visitors on the signage is such that Visitors should not stay longer than 24 hours, nor return within 24 hours. By definition a 'Visitor' would not hold a permit of their own therefore cannot be held to account for not displaying one. The requirement to display a permit relates to vehicles parked in marked bays, which the Defendant's Vehicle was not. The Claimant's case (presuming it relates to failure to display a permit) is therefore nonsensical when their own signage does not explicitly state a Visitor should obtain a permit.

Southernsoftie_jo

Have received DQ from Gladrags and have completed my copy for the court too, following helpful instructions in Newbie thread (thanks all).

Quick question, when I send my copy to the Court and the Claimant, I'll obviously keep a copy for myself, but can I just send it at the P Office with proof of postage?

Thanks!

KeithP

Southernsoftie_jo wrote: »

Quick question, when I send my copy to the Court and the Claimant, I'll obviously keep a copy for myself, but can I just send it at the P Office with proof of postage?

Yes, that's the right thing to do with the Claimant's copy - address on your Claim Form.

Return your completed DQ to the CCBC using the same method and to the same email address that you sent your Defence. Refresh you memory on that by re-reading post #96 above.

Southernsoftie_jo

I sent my DQ in before the deadline of 29th May. I received the email receipt from the court but it's not showing on MCOL. Do I need to chase this up or just wait now to get a court date?

Thanks!

Le_Kirk

The processing centre at Northampton CCBCC is apparently a little behind so just keep checking daily.