Link parking fine.

KeithP

polomints wrote: »

OK, but what are you saying yes to?

The answer 'yes' is to your question 'is it a good idea...'.

polomints

Ok, well the sign seemed quite prominant to me. Someone else has told me that there is something wrong with the sign that I should appeal on and that and that is that" It's a forbidding sign. It does not offer parking, so its impossible to enter into a parking contract."

polomints

I was hoping to get a response to that, I have until Sunday until it's been 28 days so I still have 5 days left to send an appeal before I presumably will get a letter in the mail.

I just realised you're suggesting I make the same claim as the person elsewhere has, "it offers no parking licence" so it would be impossible to enter into a contract for parking? Should I change the wording of the letter to take that into account?

Coupon-mad

We didn't reply as the advice is already clear:

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Just send the BLUE template as is, make no changes, deletions or additions. This should have been made clear in the body of the text you were reading where the template is situated.

Several of us directed you to also read the NEWBIES thread, where you would have learned from post #3 of it, that with IPC firm, the appeal does not 'work' (it's just an exercise in disputing it rather than ignoring). And there is no point adding anything to the template, and no point trying the kangaroo court of IAS second stage run by the Trade Body. This is a nothing stage; no need for threads about it.

All of this is already in the sticky thread we all advised you to read.

This will carry on as per usual until court stage where we see wins almost every time, and that's where the point comes into defence, that the signs made no contractual offer, so there could not have been a contractual breach.

If you want to see all the wins, including v Link Parking with similar signs, search the forum for 'ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST' which I post under every court win/discontinued case, to make them easy for all of us to find.

No-one gets a CCJ even if they lose and there is no risk, as long as people don't ignore an actual court claim, and tell their pet parking scammer if they move house within 6 years, (so as to avoid a late CCJ without you knowing, to an old address).

polomints

OK thankyou, silly question, but why would they use such a defective sign? Is it just that they're incompotent?

KeithP

polomints wrote: »

...why would they use such a defective sign? Is it just that they're incompetent?

Yes .

Coupon-mad

polomints wrote: »

OK thankyou, silly question, but why would they use such a defective sign? Is it just that they're incompotent?

Yes, they'll have had the same signs for years and these firms don't care (because most victims just pay up, or lose at appeal/court because they are clueless about what to say).

What's in it for them to update all their signs across the Country, at huge cost, if the majority of the great British Towie generation (or snowflakes, or scared elderlies) think they have to pay?

polomints

Thankyou for your help, but why don't I just bring up the defective sign striaght away?

KeithP

polomints wrote: »

Thankyou for your help, but why don't I just bring up the defective sign striaght away?

Several reasons:

1) there is a strong suspicion that the PPCs don't even bother to read appeals, so why go to the effort of adding anything?

2) There is a risk that you might add a sentence like "I couldn't read the signs" thus giving away the driver's identity.

3) Some PPCs recognise the standard MSE appeal text and mark it 'too difficult' and cancel straight away.

4) Probably some others.


Just send the blue text appeal unaltered.
No point in doing anything else.


That's likely to be my last contribution to this thread - too much like hard work.

Coupon-mad

polomints wrote: »

Thankyou for your help, but why don't I just bring up the defective sign striaght away?

Because it's pointless. A circular argument at this stage, and why tip them off. No appeal works to an IPC firm, they are beaten in court.