Help Requested With WS - Court Hearing vs Gladstones & PPM Ltd

muleskinner

pappa_golf wrote: »

that sign does not look to be new , google streetview show anything

It's pretty new, last couple of weeks at a guess. I drive past that location all the time.

I have used Google Streetview to go 'back in time' and demonstrate that, prior to the PPM notices, there were no parking restrictions to speak of here (it just said 'loading only'). StreetView is August 2016 at that location.

pappa_golf

Im am struggling with streetview for that location , photos in june 17 show the PPC sign , however it looks (from your last photo) that this has been removed and a counsil sign installed I would suggest to keep going on to the counsil and possibly land registry

it looks like the counsil have taken a huff and removed there signage

Loadsofchildren123

this clearly implies it's adopted highway.


Which dept at the council are you speaking to? Speak to the Highways Dept, they will have a map showing all the roads they are responsible for.


It's the pole that looks old, not the sign

muleskinner

It's hard to get any concrete info from the council and it looks like the only person who might be qualified to help has left on leave and isn't back until the 2nd which is when my WS/evidence needs to be in!

From what I have gleaned it's not adopted highway yet, but it is set to be at some unspecified point in the future.

There has been a recent parking control order (or something) though set to be enforced 27th December, so it's probable these new signs have gone up early as a result of that.

As to what the legal status was before that date no-one has been able to give me a straight answer!

Anyway - I'm going to try and put the onus on Glastards to prove PPM had the right to ticket there, I don't think that can hurt. New signage proves that jurisdiction over that site is somewhat of a grey area.

The 'loading only' sign that was there before PPM put up their signs looked like a council sign too - it was one like this...

pappa_golf

£20 , cheaper on ebay https://www.securitysafetyproducts.co.uk/security/safety-signs/loading-only-sign-r2-250x110mm-3mm-thick-with-channelling.php?gclid=CjwKCAiA1O3RBRBHEiwAq5fD_KC72d_7hXvxAnoM68voWgnojTrUobRY0ouLp4ogFMTXSC1wrp-0IxoCTxgQAvD_BwE

muleskinner

Haha - OK! I won't say that's a council sign!

beamerguy

muleskinner wrote: »

Anyway - I'm going to try and put the onus on Glastards to prove PPM had the right to ticket there, I don't think that can hurt. New signage proves that jurisdiction over that site is somewhat of a grey area.

It will always be up to Gladstones to prove their claim.

It explains why they are getting whooped in court.

I think we all know that Gladstones are completely stupid.
Don't expect them to understand
The IPC/IAS SCAM of Hurley and Davies scams the
motorists and their own members

Loadsofchildren123

I second beamerguy, just what I was going to say. This is THEIR case to prove. So just put in your WS that it has a council sign up and that it must be adopted highway and they therefore have no right to operate there.

muleskinner

OK - thanks for the above advice. I will do that.

Today I received WS from Gladstones - actually early! I've attached their arguments below in case anyone has any feedback/advice on how to counter these.

The evidence they've supplied is in such a state it's quite astounding. Probably about 95% of it is completely irrelevant - literally photos of random cars parked in random spaces elsewhere on the site that have absolutely nothing to do with this incident at all. And loads of printout of parking signs but not one of the sign in this case! God knows what a judge will make of it.

It also looks very much like they had no authority from the landowner to manage the bay in question. The bay is marked with restrictions on one of the maps supplied (though anyone could have cooked that map up) but it's explicitly outside the area defined as the 'site' on other documentation and there's no mention of it on the contractual docs, all of which specifically mention certain types of bays and the restrictions which apply to them.

There's also a photo in there, supposedly of historic signage, which looks very much like it's been faked.

=====

Loadsofchildren123

make those points in your WS, the bay being outside the boundary of their operation is dynamite.