Bw legal letter ..... LJLA

si_dean

Ok, thanks Redx.

Just a thought on the postage..... do you think its worth me actually sending it recored postage (i don’t mind doing so) and ita more for peice of mind that the letter has arrived at its destination.
For all I know they could receive my letter but pretend “nothing was received at their end”.
Again, this is all new to me so i’m not sure if this could or has happened in the past thats all.

Quentin

No. Follow the advice to get a cert of posting

Do not use the signed for service!

pappa_golf

si_dean wrote: »

Ok, thanks Redx.

Just a thought on the postage..... do you think its worth me actually sending it recored postage (i don’t mind doing so) and ita more for peice of mind that the letter has arrived at its destination.
For all I know they could receive my letter but pretend “nothing was received at their end”.
Again, this is all new to me so i’m not sure if this could or has happened in the past thats all.

or , they could refuse to sign for letters , and you would then have proof that they did not receive it

[Deleted User]

For all I know they could receive my letter but pretend “nothing was received at their end”.

They could. But the court rules presume post arrives 2 days after despatch (whether it did or didn't). In theory even a certificate of posting is overkill, but certainly does no harm.

Whereas my firm sign for everything, I have seen at least one on this forum (and there may well be many others) where the letters were not signed for and returned.

si_dean

Hi guys,

Ok so i did my letter as outlined above and ive just had a 12 page letter back from them.

If you would like me to upload copies of them i’ll be more than happy too.

To summarise, they have attached photographic evidence this time round (which they failed to do previously) and it shows the car of which is registered to myself stopping briefly to pick a passenger up. The picture shows my car and reg but does not show the face of the driver. In response to me asking are they pursuing me as the registered keeper or as the actual driver, they’ve advised
“for the avoidance of doubt, our client has not relied on upon the protection of freedoms act 2012, schedule 4 to impose liability on me as the registered keeper.

In terms of their contract agreement with the land owner and a copy / evidence of said contract including the specifics of the signage, they just mention the signs are clearly displayed (which they are not!) and that the text size of the signs are relative to the average approach speed of an approaching vehicle on those roads..

The photographic evidence does not show any signage anywere
Around the vacinity of The car.

Interestingly, with regards to the contract between their client and the land owner, they’ve said
“Its our clients postion that it is the lawful occupier of the site & enforces and manages the site terms in a reasonable manner”.
They then go on to advise “ This is clearly displayed on the signage located on site. The contract between their client and the land owner is a legally priviledged document which I have no rght to inspect.

The pictures they have then also attached of the signage are just close ups of the so-called signs that are around there. A picture of one of these signs is even dated 30/08/2012 and all you can see in the background is an industrial unit so who’s to say that is even the same land as the incident took place??

As ive mentioned above i’ll be more than happy to upload the pictures if you require these.

Coupon-mad

I would reply, pointing out their omissions and the lack of evidence, sign dated 2012, etc., and robustly conclude that they have failed to show a cause of action for any claim in law.

Umkomaas

they just mention the signs are clearly displayed (which they are not!) and that the text size of the signs are relative to the average approach speed of an approaching vehicle on those roads..

This might help:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html

esmerobbo

Umkomaas wrote: »

This might help:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html

The signs were updated last summer and you cant really miss them as they have erected a second set behind the first pair. You wont get anywhere regarding signage as there are numerous and you cant miss them, although you may not be looking for them.

The font on the first signs was increased in size and the wording on the signs was reduced as per Liverpool's councils planning department requirements.

There is also a 10 metre section of road at the beginning of the road set in blue road marking which is supposedly to let people know the road is private.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/planning-permission-17a0037-signage-at.html

http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/PlanningExplorer17/ApplicationSearch.aspx

Application: 17A/0037

si_dean

Hi guys,

Thanks for all your responses.

Coupon m: i cant help but feel i would need to write more back to them that just the date element of ine of their signage, so (and this applies to anybody else) who can answer this question, ive read the prking prankster and othwr threads about the physical road signage, but i’m unsure with what to reapond back fo them with now.
My previous one was a letter containing a fair few paragraphs, so this time round do i just quote what you have said in your comment Coupon M with some bits taken from prking prankster.

Some tips or a format to go back to them wth would be greatfully appreciated.

Cheers.

The_Deep

for the avoidance of doubt, our client has not relied on upon the protection of freedoms act 2012, schedule 4 to impose liability on me as the registered keeper.

Are they quoting Elliott v Loake? If so, read these

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-v-ms-x-c8dp5c7t.html