90 seconds

beamerguy

When I first read about Helen Dolphin and saw it on
the IPC web site, I thought it was an April fools joke
instigated by the Gladstones clowns

Helen Dolphin does not have a clue:rotfl:

ellaro

Ive had a 'Notice of intended court proceedings' from vcs' and having had a read around the forum this should be treated as a letter before claim which needs to be responded to, am I correct in this?

Fruitcake

I wouldn't take the chance that it is a bluff, so advise you to respond accordingly.

You probably already know, but the court guide including how to respond to an LBC is in post 2 of the NEWBIES, written by bargepole.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for

'Notice of intended court proceedings'

and read any recent VCS or Excel threads like yours, advice is there that you can follow.

ellaro

Ive been reading up on Excel and VCS cases, and happily ignoring the debt collector letters. Ive also done what loadsofchildren advised and informed them I intend to counter claim.

Now the interesting bit is my mp sent me this reply today from the ipc...

"Please see below for the further from the operator.


The pertinent point regarding the quote provided is "Adjustments could include lowered pay and display meters, lowered signage and wider bays marked specifically for disabled drivers". We fully consider the needs and required adjustments for disabled drivers when setting up a site for enforcement. Signage needs to be placed at a height that not only allows able bodied drivers to read but also those with disabilities. As well as this, signage is placed at a height that will allow for all sizes of vehicle to be parked and so allowing other motorists the ability to see and so read the signs. You will note the bay in which the motorist was parked is clearly marked as a designated disabled bay allowing extra room at the sides for easy access for driver or passenger.

I have attached a series of photographs showing the entrance to site, the entrance board that is easily readable when a motorist drives onto site and a contravention photograph.

You will note that the disabled bays are immediately on the left on entry to site and the site itself allows for a maximum stay of 2 hours, there is no requirement to pay to park. As above, this is clearly communicated to the motorist on the entrance board and would be easily visible from a wheelchair (if this is the case) on the sign positioned directly behind where the vehicle was parked. As there is no requirement for a motorist to pay to park on site, I cannot accept the motorist's claim that they were in the process of going to the entrance board to read the T&Cs applicable.

The vehicle was parked in a clearly marked designated disabled bay, any Blue Badge holder would therefore be fully aware of the requirement to display a valid disabled badge when parking regardless of whether they intended to seek out other signage."

So that was from VCS

kryten3000

What a load of rubbish. Conveniently forgetting the grace period they must take account of before taking enforcement action. The IPC code of practice specifically states:

"15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site."

(my emphasis). The point is driver parks first then reads signs, they do not have to read them on the way in to the car park.

Fruitcake

Do you have pics to show the bay was not clearly marked as a disabled space so you can rebut this carp?

Have you got, or can you get pics of the entrance to show that perhaps if the car park is approached from a certain direction, the signs can't be seen by a driver?

ellaro

Yes I have pictures which show the paint is VERY faded and no signs to show they're disabled bays, they've attached pictures to their reply which are obviously not recent and clearly shows a disabled bay.
I also have the video from the dash cam as I entered the car park which clearly shows its impossible to read the sign whilst in motion.

Fruitcake

ellaro wrote: »

Yes I have pictures which show the paint is VERY faded and no signs to show they're disabled bays, they've attached pictures to their reply which are obviously not recent and clearly shows a disabled bay.
I also have the video from the dash cam as I entered the car park which clearly shows its impossible to read the sign whilst in motion.

So send/show this to your MP so that they can see that the scammers are lying, which is why you want them to intervene as well as fully support Sir Gregg Knight's bill.

Redx

also bear in mind and tell this MP thast the BB scheme does not apply on private land and that the parking bays come under the EA2010 and should be marked up so that anyone who isnt blind can see that clearly


the fact it isnt a p & d car park can only be found out by reading the signs and the t & c,s so even myself as a BB holder and who also qualifies under the EA2010 has to check each and every car park I park in for the rules and regs