Waitrose, BW Legal, Britannia Parking, John Lewis Legal team

BS_Newbie

excellent thank you - I will go to tinypic right now as the signs from 2016 really do make good viewing

NeilCr

Others know far more about this than me (not difficult!) and will be able to assist.

But, I guess, it is possible that a question may arise as to why the driver kept overstaying when they had tickets for that very 'offence" for a number of years before

BS_Newbie

KeithP wrote: »

I'm not sure a Part 18 Request is appropriate in the Small Claims Track. Please check.

Thanks KeithP - I will check this out.- so many forum posts have been studied I cant remember where this suggestion came from
Is there anything else you could recommend if a Part 18 is not suitable ?

Redx

I may be wrong but I think the part 18 was from very , very old advice about these matters , posted by Lazydaisy many years ago (see the crabman sticky thread) , and the PaP were changed in october 2017 so maybe its now defunct ?


if so , the replacement is COMPLIANCE with the PaP oct 2017 protocols , under CPR rules (I think)

BS_Newbie

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I copy as viewer links and change http to hxxp or similar , do not attempt to use box for insert image

just copy sand paste like this hXX ps://ibb. co/mXJVTYZ

then press close in to right corner of imgbb and do next

Hi White house cat - I must be doing something wrong. Ive uploaded all the images I need to ibb and stored them in a new lbum - Ive just tried to copy and past one image and changed the http to hXXp as you suggested but the image is not showing -
Any idea what I am doing wrong

BS_Newbie

NeilCr wrote: »

Others know far more about this than me (not difficult!) and will be able to assist.

But, I guess, it is possible that a question may arise as to why the driver kept overstaying when they had tickets for that very 'offence" for a number of years before

I think the view of the RK is that if this is a free car park and they are spending a lot of money in store then they don't see why they should not be able to use the car park for longer than the 90 mins allowed .

Also they pointed out that from the place they park its impossible to see a single sign and that when driving in it is impossible to read the small print on the sign and therefore they maintain that as such no contract can possibly have been entered into .

twhitehousescat

NO , open one here , open new page on imgbb , then copy pic from computer , copy (as above( and reopen this page and paste , flick back to imgbb do second , return here and paste below , continue , the post

twhitehousescat

BS_Newbie wrote: »

I think the view of the RK is that if this is a free car park and they are spending a lot of money in store then they don't see why they should not be able to use the car park for longer than the 90 mins allowed .

Also they pointed out that from the place they park its impossible to see a single sign and that when driving in it is impossible to read the small print on the sign and therefore they maintain that as such no contract can possibly have been entered into .

I have never spent more than 30 mins in a corner shop

BS_Newbie

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I have never spent more than 30 mins in a corner shop

Well I think they may not be spending all that time in the store !! - and the RK was not the driver so I can't say why the driver may have left the car there each time over the 90 mins -

The RK doesnt want to name the driver for various private reasons so they want to deal with it as the RK unless there is a definite advantage to naming the driver - Thats what I was hoping to have some guidance on by posting the proposed strategy. I am not able to answer questions about why the driver stayed there longer than the 90 mins stated on the signs

Redx

I agree with you that if a customer wishes to spend longer than 90 minutes inside a store (plus car park) they should be allowed to do so and some mechanism like registering the vehicle instore (like in pubs) should allow it. in any case , my local asda has no time limit for customers using PE and my local morrissons has 3 hours with ECP

thse companies have brought these measures in to stop people parking up all day whilst going to work etc

so forget about that and concentrate on what matters

there is no advantage to the driver by the keeper naming the driver , the only advantage is to the keeper , because under POFA naming the driver allows the keeper to exit out of the picture

naming the driver means that the PPC can issue court proceedings against the driver without the encumbrance of POFA, these companies have always had the right to chase the driver, its knowing who was actually driving that is the hard part for them

the infamous case in Scotland was taken out against a known and persistent driver and she lost and the PPC was awarded thousands of pounds, so known drivers get taken to court a lot and they can easily lose

also , this argument about signs above, is fine for one contravention , but familiarity breeds contempt and so a judge would say that if this is a regular parking occurrence then the driver should be familiar with the signs due to parking there a lot, ignorance is not bliss when this parking charge issue happens a lot

ie:- a driver cannot keep saying they are unfamiliar with the rules if they park there regularly , especially not after getting say 5 tickets

ignorance is only bliss for one or possibly two parking events , after that the driver is bilking and so cannot expect the same safeguards that somebody with one contravention may rely on


so the first time it happened and a complaint was made to the store manager , followed by a complaint to JL, means only that particular event counts as the IGNORANCE stage, any further contraventions cannot possibly be upheld as IGNORANCE


lastly , posting dead links to picture sites is ALWAYS POSSIBLE, but embedding them into your posts may not be , hewever , that last link failed and didnt lead to any pictures

all pictures must be uploaded to a hosting site, no good leaving them on your pc