MINSTER PCN postal

KeithP

The driver was unable to tell what parking restrictions applied because there were no visible signs or unable to tell what parking restrictions applied because it was dark and the sign wasn’t illuminated in any way.

Can that sentence be tidied up?

azz007

Umkomaas wrote: »

‘handled photos’?

can i say Portable device?

Have you drafted this yourself from scratch or copied and pasted from somewhere else? It’s not addressing the PPC directly. It looks more like an appeal to a third party (POPLA?) rather than to the PPC.

can i say Portable device?

i took that from my popla appeal. is there anyway to advise how to make it addressed directly to the PPC with your help..... or best to leave this part out on the appeal.?

Edited

---

Also there is no proof of landowner authority by yourselves Minster Baywatch to operate on this land - Bank Top Tavern OL8 1ES stated on the PCN. As you does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require you to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what you are authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because your are contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that you are also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Redx

looking at the picture provided and the google overhead map it seems to be at the side of the mecca bingo to the left near the overhead ramp to the car park, whereas the pub is to the right of that ramp so unconnected. it actually looks like a loading bay area

so if MB monitor the MECCA BINGO car park its likely that Mecca Bingo own that land and have asked MB to keep it clear (its like a loading bay for Mecca, or some other purpose)

we need to go on the assumption that it is private land and the landowner has asked MB to monitor and enforce on that land

the NTK mentions Mecca Bingo too , so as well as monitoring the overhead car park I think MB are now monitoring that strip of land as well, for the landowner

it could well be a cash cow trap set for the unwary

the sign picture shows clearly that parking is forbidden, whereas we dont have a picture of the other sign , its possible that 2 regimes are in force, one being NO PARKING and the other being parking for 30 minutes, with no clear demarcation on the ground

I would assume that Mecca have contracted MB to enforce on their own private land and any appeals etc should proceed on that basis unless proved otherwise

getting the actual land registry footprint and boundary markings may also prove if this is the case

MB could have got the postcode wrong so I do not believe the Bank Tavern Pub is involved at all

and post #20 wants editing to "where the driver was parked"

you need to depersonalise all your writings on public forums

KeithP

azz007 wrote: »

can i say Portable device?

You can say hand held camera - if that's what you mean.

azz007

Redx wrote: »

looking at the picture provided and the google overhead map it seems to be at the side of the mecca bingo to the left near the overhead ramp to the car park, whereas the pub is to the right of that ramp so unconnected. it actually looks like a loading bay area

Thats right, the driver was literally parked beneath the overhead strip.MB do monitor the main Mecca bingo car parks ground and upper level. and now have extended their signs everywhere else almost. Just not near the St John medical centre as show on google maps overhead view.

Redx wrote: »

the NTK mentions Mecca Bingo too , so as well as monitoring the overhead car park I think MB are now monitoring that strip of land as well, for the landowner

so is the NTK non compliant as it has wrong address OL8 1ES as thats Bank top Tavern? Could i argue this on appeal?

Redx wrote: »

the sign picture shows clearly that parking is forbidden, whereas we dont have a picture of the other sign , its possible that 2 regimes are in force, one being NO PARKING and the other being parking for 30 minutes, with no clear demarcation on the ground

yeh there are 2 or 3 different signs in this area beneath the overhead strip, the bay area. ive added on the drop box link the sign picture,.

Redx wrote: »

MB could have got the postcode wrong so I do not believe the Bank Tavern Pub is involved at all

reiterating the above, is the NTK non-compliant then as it has potentially the wrong adresss if they are not operating for the BANK TOP TAVERN.
mecca bingo adress is 24-28, King Street, Oldham, OL8 1DR and NOT OL8 1ES

Redx

you mean THE DRIVER was parked !!

you still havent got the hang of the depersonalisation yet , have you ?

what happened on the day happened to THE DRIVER

what happened since the day has happened to THE KEEPER

edit the last post and post #20 please

for avoidance off doubt , do not use the following words "ME , MYSELF & I"

I have no idea if the NTK is compliant , I have never said I am a legal expert on these matters nor do I know what the Post Office designate for that particular area near the health centre and pub , other than their own postal addresses

I have pointed out the obvious from studying your pictures and posts and the google map overhead picture of the mecca bingo

Mario Hair is King Square, Oldham OL8 1DH

John St Medical is 1 John St, Oldham OL8 1DF

the front of Mecca Bingo is 24-28 King St, Oldham OL8 1DR

Bank top Tavern is OL8 1ES

the closest letter box to where the vehicle was parked seems to be the last one , the pub itself and I believe that the land there is owned by Mecca Bingo , as it seems to be part of their overhead gantry area and loading bay

it is definitely in the OL8 postcode area

azz007

Redx wrote: »

have no idea if the NTK is compliant , I have never said I am a legal expert on these matters nor do I know what the Post Office designate for that particular area near the health centre and pub , other than their own postal addresses

I have pointed out the obvious from studying your pictures and posts and the google map overhead picture of the mecca bingo

Mario Hair is King Square, Oldham OL8 1DH

John St Medical is 1 John St, Oldham OL8 1DF

Bank top Tavern is OL8 1ES

the front of Mecca Bingo is 24-28 King St, Oldham OL8 1DR

those are the correct address you have stated thanks.

POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 PARA 9, 2,a

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

i think they have got the land incorrect on the NTK as i dont think BANK TOP are involved here.

went to speak to somebody at lunchtime there and they said a man in a white van comes in the morning takes pictures and off he goes.

Redx

the relevant land seems to be MECCA BINGO and it is definitely in the OL8 postcode area after googling the postcode map

so the latter designation may or may not be correct but as its near the pub I suspect it is correct

my opinion is that MECCA BINGO own that strip of land and those loading bay areas , especially when looking at the overhead map and they must have had planning permission for the ramp and its gantry holding it up near to where the vehicle was parked , so if the NTK says Mecca Bingo then it seems correct to me , plus the postcode could be correct given the proximity of that pub

that sign you posted says the driver agrees to a charge of £100 for parking there, so its a one shot deal for the pictures , the contract to park is £100 and the vehicle was clearly parked there so that is what you are fighting as keeper of the vehicle

azz007

Redx wrote: »

the relevant land seems to be MECCA BINGO and it is definitely in the OL8 postcode area after googling the postcode map

so the latter designation may or may not be correct but as its near the pub I suspect it is correct

my opinion is that MECCA BINGO own that strip of land and those loading bay areas , especially when looking at the overhead map and they must have had planning permission for the ramp and its gantry holding it up near to where the vehicle was parked , so if the NTK says Mecca Bingo then it seems correct to me , plus the postcode could be correct given the proximity of that pub

that sign you posted says the driver agrees to a charge of £100 for parking there, so its a one shot deal for the pictures , the contract to park is £100 and the vehicle was clearly parked there so that is what you are fighting as keeper of the vehicle

The signage is poor and cannot be seen they a small 30cmx30xm is that. even from 10 yartds difficult tot read and especially gettign to work at 8am its still dark and not fairly visile to see, on close inspection yes every sign is clear.

i can only appeal , which they can either look at or reject,,, so it will be onto POPLA next either way

Redx

agreed

as keeper you will dispute everything that you can , including poor and inadequate signage , no contract , no landowner authority , not the same as beavis , any POFA failures , any BPA CoP failures etc

so all the usual suspects