Help and guidance please

KeithP

Capt_Mainwaring wrote: »

Hi Keith

I've read through it and I'm still none the wiser!

Then you'll need to read it again, and again until you do understand it.

No-one is pretending it is a simple subject.

Half_way

You do need to be a bit more open, and provide enough information to work with ( although not too much)
trying to guess as to what parasitical parking company is involved and who the landowner is does not make things easy.

A complaint to the landowner should look at getting one of two results:
An outright cancellation
A withdrawal of support, this is when the landowner will say we do not support the parking company pursuing the parking charge and want it dropped, but the parking company is the tail wagging the dog.

As soon as you can get the landowner on side you should let the PPC know, they dont like it up em.

Capt_Mainwaring

Thanks for your replies.

The penultimate letter I received from BW Legal was a Letter of Claim (issued in Nov 2017). An information sheet that came with it (Annex 1) contains the following wording;

'This information sheet is a summary of your rights and responsibilities under the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims'.

It then confirms a website address (Justice.gov.uk). As this letter was issued after 1st October, does the Daniel San letter still apply?

Capt_Mainwaring

Thanks Half Way. Please keep the Dad's Army references coming.

Excel no longer 'manage' the car park concerned. I will write to the Retailer that I visited to see what they can do to help. I should have done this at the time but decided the best course of action was to imitate an ostrich (you stupid boy...).

Edna_Basher

Capt_Mainwaring wrote: »

From memory, I think the identity of the driver was confirmed during the appeal to the firm.

That's a shame - Excel's non-compliant Notice to Keeper would have been a solid defence point for the vehicle's keeper.

The general advice on this Forum is "don't tell them your name, driver".

Capt_Mainwaring

The penultimate letter I received from BW Legal was a Letter of Claim (issued in Nov 2017). An information sheet that came with it (Annex 1) contains the following wording;

'This information sheet is a summary of your rights and responsibilities under the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims'.

It then confirms a website address (Justice.gov.uk). As this letter was issued after 1st October, does the Daniel San letter still apply?

EXTRA DETAIL

The park in question is Cavendish Street retail park in Keighley. This park has been used before on numerous occasions with no problems. The retailer was Sports Direct. Excel no longer operate from this car park.The alleged offences happened in May and June 2017.

Please let me know if any more detail is required. I'm sorry if you think I have been arsey. I've read that you shouldn't divulge too much info, hence why I omitted the specifics. However, I really need your help to resolve this matter once and for all. Many thanks.

Lamilad

You must respond to the LBC as advised above. It's highly likely you will receive court papers in the near future so you should start researching your defence.

Check - did you definitely reveal the name of the driver? Can you post the appeal you sent on here?

The machines are well known for not working at CRP. What was the duration of stay as stated on the PCN/ NTK?

Excel signs are confusing and illegible and their particulars of claim will fail to comply with the relevant CPR's....... This all goes in your defence.

But you must not say things in your defence which contradict what you have said in your appeal - which is why we need to see it.

Capt_Mainwaring

Hi Lamilad

I'm glad you have replied, as I've seen your name before in connection to CRP and I know you've been successful in the past.

The cars were parked there for just 34 minutes and 24 minutes respectively. I'll post the appeal on here later, as I'm setting off to work shortly.

Capt_Mainwaring

A word document was kept with the details of a brief appeal made against the first PCN.

'?? have used the car park in Keighley many times before and have ALWAYS paid the fare. ?? use it as it only costs 50p to park for one hour and as you can see, ?? was only there for 34 minutes. ?? did not pay on the day in question, because the pay and display machines were not working! ?? assumed this was due to the recent launch of the new £1 coin and the machines were out of order pending an upgrade. Either way, two machines were not working, so ?? was unable to pay for parking. ?? have to say, ?? very surprised to have received this parking notice when it is clear that ?? have done nothing wrong. Please can you confirm that the matter is now closed and that ?? owe no money. Many thanks'.

Coupon-mad

So the driver was given away and 'not paying' was admitted. Ouch, bad appeal.

A PPC Trade Body would say a driver should have left the car park if they couldn't comply. I am not saying I agree but that's what the PPC will say, and/or they'll allege one machine was working all along.