Markham Retail Park Chesterfield - Now County Court Business Centre

dalew007

I dont know what version this is from but this is funny

14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking
charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will
be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.

dalew007

Was version 4 which ran till october 2016 i think i just read

dalew007

Is it worth me putting something in my defence that the pictures of the car parked were taken at a certain time and the ticket was wrote out exactly 10 minutes later, but the officer couldn't affix the ticket as the car was driven off before they had finished writing the ticket proving the car was parked for less than 10 minutes, i know the grace period will probably be over looked but this could show that the officer was just trying to make money.

KeithP

That is all stuff for your Witness Statement. Not Defence.

Redx

Defence = legal arguments

Witness statement = your story etc

Coupon-mad

dalew007 wrote: »

Is it worth me putting something in my defence that the pictures of the car parked were taken at a certain time and the ticket was wrote out exactly 10 minutes later, but the officer couldn't affix the ticket as the car was driven off before they had finished writing the ticket proving the car was parked for less than 10 minutes, i know the grace period will probably be over looked but this could show that the officer was just trying to make money.

Yes - for Witness Statement stage (later) - but don't call them an 'officer' as those people most certainly are not.

dalew007

thanks for the advice, bandits sounds better but ill bare it in mind.

How does the defence look that i have posted ?

Coupon-mad

6a is wrong because VCS haven't been in the BPA AOS for many years. You need to quote the IPC CoP from the material date (an archive version you will have to Google search for).

#9 is in the wrong place; it's buried among the points about added fake costs.

And remove this, as this case is old and there is no real argument to be made about mitigating loss, since Beavis:

c. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?’ The Defendant contends that Vehicle Control Solutions have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

dalew007

Thanks
I have been to the site today and took pictures of the car park signs and the car park is now being manage by a different parking management company, hopefully this is good news for my defence as this shows VCS are pursuing something they do not have a vested interest in??

Redx

makes no difference at all


you want historical pictures from the time of the incident