Gladstones SIP - Parking Charge - Court

Coupon-mad

Am I correct in bringing up the POFA 7.2(e) as the ticket above which is the notice to driver does not state the creditor. The NTK which they have also provided specifically states 'We, the creditor' But as the ticket did not, this would mean that they have not complied with POFA?

Yes that is in para 7 of Sch 4 but it's unlikely to be a game changer, IMHO.

More important is to look at the NTK, have they stated the 28 day warning properly?

Junadium87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes that is in para 7 of Sch 4 but it's unlikely to be a game changer, IMHO.

More important is to look at the NTK, have they stated the 28 day warning properly?

As I am unable to post pictures etc I will type what the NTK states:

Dated: 13/02/2017

Dear .....

On the 10/01/2017 a Parking Charge Notice was served by our parking enforcement officer to the above vehicle which was parked in a manner where by the driver accrued a PCN in accordance with the signage as displayed at the location described below.

The driver of the above vehicle is liable for a Parking Charge in the above amount which, at the date of this notice, remains unpaid in full and for which the Balance Due remains outstanding.

The reason the charge became due was: Exceeded Time
The charge was issued in: Walmer st, Manchester at ... on...

The Parking Charge notice (Notice to Driver) was affixed to the windscreen of the above vehicle at the Time of issue. The charge relates to the period of parking that immediately preceded the issue of that Notice, the charge having been incurred for the reason as stated above and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the location above at the time of parking.

We, the above named company, are the creditor. At the time of this notice we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and as the registered keeper of the vehicle:

YOU ARE NO INVITED TO
i) Pay the unpaid Parking Charge using the instructions overleaf.
or
ii) If you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us (using section 3 attached) of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND pass this Notice on to the driver.

Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that now which the Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we have the right to recover from you, so much of that Parking Charge as remains unpaid.

I never received this NTK by the way, first time I saw it was in the claimants WS.

Thanks

Also, how can anyone 'accrue' a PCN? That makes no sense at all?

Junadium87

Would this much suffice? Is there something else I should also add too?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Would it not be easier to simply show us a broken link like every other newbie does?

From that we can't see the info in the box on the side/the date of issue, etc.

Junadium87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Would it not be easier to simply show us a broken link like every other newbie does?

From that we can't see the info in the box on the side/the date of issue, etc.

h t t p s : / / preview.ibb.co/eYbWLS/Gladstones_witstat_2a.jpg

Sorry, hadn't thought of that.

System

Since this is Walmer Street, you should check the SIP pack as in it will be a contract from SIP to SIP to allow them to operate. There is no evidence that they have the permission of the landowners or occupiers - no chain of authority. To all intents they could be a sign supplier as claimed by the person signing the "contract" for Walmer Street at a recent Rates appeal.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/company-boss-awarded-1200-after-737025

The parking firm's director Chris Marsden said they provided cash machines, signs and barriers for property owners to run the car park, in exchange for 30 percent of the takings.

Get in contact with the council and try to find out who pays the Non-Domestic Rates for that site. They are the true occupiers.

Le_Kirk

Here is your live link: -
https://preview.ibb.co/eYbWLS/Gladstones_witstat_2a.jpg

Coupon-mad

IMHO, that's a compliant NTK.

So attack the landowner angle. Do as IamEmanresu says, in his final line.

Interesting newspaper article, IamEmanresu. One might be forgiven for concluding that IMHO, parking operators are like Teflon.

Junadium87

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Since this is Walmer Street, you should check the SIP pack as in it will be a contract from SIP to SIP to allow them to operate. There is no evidence that they have the permission of the landowners or occupiers - no chain of authority. To all intents they could be a sign supplier as claimed by the person signing the "contract" for Walmer Street at a recent Rates appeal.


Get in contact with the council and try to find out who pays the Non-Domestic Rates for that site. They are the true occupiers.

Thank you for that. If SIP do not pay the rates, how should I take this angle? By simply stating there is not chain of authority and no evidence as you stated?

h t t p s : / / image.ibb.co/grVOZn/sip_sip.jpg

The above link is the SIP to SIP contract in their WS

System

By simply stating there is not chain of authority and no evidence as you stated?

You simply point out that there isn't a chain. This is a company authorising itself with no proof they are the actual occupiers. [You could add the occupiers are xxx who pay the NdR according to the council IF you can find it out in time]

Add in a copy of the article to show that the person signing the form you have (Chris Marsden) is on record as explaining they are not necessarily occupiers and may just be cash collectors. You believe this is the case here unless proven otherwise. As such they would have no standing to offer parking - just the ability to put up signs and collect cash.