Gladstones - Technical defence against PCM

Coupon-mad

It looks fine except this make little sense to me:

10. Photos of the sign where it states (in writing) where the vehicle of the alleged contravention was parked is an official parking bay which sits within the remit of the restricted area.

Kas22

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It looks fine except this make little sense to me:

The reason I added that point was that there is no proof or indication on the PCM sign that where the vehicle was parked, was part of the restricted area. It only states "Vehicles must be parked with a valid parking permit fully displayed within the windscreen and parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display"

If you deem it's not necessary, or ambiguous, I can remove it, or re-word it to; "Photos of where the vehicle was parked was a marked bay".

Coupon-mad

I think it need re-wording, not removing, I can't understand what it means!

Kas22

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think it need re-wording, not removing, I can't understand what it means!

I'll keep it simple: "Photos of where the vehicle was parked was a marked bay"

Coupon-mad

Still not grammatical!

Do you mean:

'photographs of where the car parked at the material time, which I assert was a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display'.

?

Kas22

No. Where the vehicle was parked was not part of the car park, hence the rules of the parking sign where not enforcable for that area.

It will be difficult for them to prove, so "Photographs of where the car parked at the material time, was a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display", would be more appropriate.

Coupon-mad

But it's not grammatical. That's not a sentence that makes sense to me.

Don't you need:

'Photographs evidencing that the specific place where the car was parked at the material time, was...' ?

Kas22

Right, that makes far more sense now!

'Photographs evidencing that the specific place where the car was parked at the material time, was a marked bay appropriate for a permit on display'

Kas22

Happy New Year all!

Hope you all had a great time and enjoyed the festive season.

I am awaiting a response from Gladstones (letter sent on the 20th). Will keep everyone updated.

Kas22

Hi All,

It's been a while but today I received a letter from Gladstones in response to the final letter I had sent out in January.

Unfortunately they didn't answer any of my questions aside from sending copies of all the back and forth letters sent from the beginning, attaching a signage map, PCM notice, a few photos of the parking location with signages, and where the vehicle was parked (marked with a cross).

The also provided a reply form and a standard financial statement.
I have no intention of filling out the financial statement, but have 30 days from the date of the received letter to fill in and return the reply form, which gives numerous options such as:

Section 1: Do you owe the debt?
Box A: I agree I owe the debt
Box B: I owe some of the debt but not all of it
Box C: I don't know whether I owe the debt
Box I dispute the debt

Sections 2 and 3 are irrelevant

Section 4: What documents are you sending with this form? What information do you need?
Box H: I have provided documents
Box I: I need more documents or information

My instinct it to tick box D and I and request them to answer all questions from my previous letter. The reply form also asks for a signature and print of name, but I'm not sure if I should be signing this.

Any recommendations on this matter?

Thanks