ES Parking Enforcement/Gladstones

Le_Kirk

Your link made live but not sanity checked: -
https://www.dropbox.com/s/95vju4i9ji7zccq/Hulme%20Hall%20Road%20TRO.pdf?dl=0

edwj2001

Thanks Le_Kirk! That works for me and hopefully for everyone else.

KeithP

Are your initials ***?

If so, you might want to change your Dropbox username to something more anonymous.

Having now seen your full name, you would be wise to get your MSE forum username changed too.

To do that, you might like to read this short extract from The MSE Forum Guide - Frequently Asked Questions & Rules:

Q. How can I change my username?

A. In most circumstances, this is not permitted.

The only reason we will change your username is if it puts your privacy at risk. This usually means you've inadvertently registered using your name, email address or something that gives away your identity within your username.

If you fall into this category, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com and request that it is changed, giving three alternative usernames in order of preference.

edwj2001

Thanks Keith. I have amended my dropbox name.

Coupon-mad

edwj2001 wrote: »

Thanks Le_Kirk, I will make the amendments as you suggested.

I have attached the TROs below. The parking pays in question are on the plan on page 11 of the first attachment. They are specifically on Hulme Hall Road on the corner just above where the '23m' is marked on the plan.

dropbox. com/ s/9 5v ju 4 i9ji7 z ccq /Hu lme% 20 Hal l%20 Road%2 0TR O. pd f?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/95vju4i9ji7zccq/Hulme%20Hall%20Road%20TRO.pdf?dl=0

OK so are you saying this place is definitely within a TRO?

edwj2001

I have marked the areas in red on the below link. I'm not entirely sure if the TRO covers it. It definitely covers that road but not entirely sure it covers those bays which are on the pavement but towards the back against a fence. I've also added a photo of the bay as it is now.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1hf7jff4b1e4cmb/Capture.PNG?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyqpe88qtz9vncw/20190808_115520.jpg?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Reminds me of this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyqpe88qtz9vncw/20190808_115520.jpg?dl=0

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13719918.business-owners-fined-for-parking-on-their-own-private-property/

A council spokesman cited case law from a 2009 Court of Appeal case in support of the decision to fine the drivers.

That was Dawood v Camden:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6691961/Doctor-loses-court-battle-over-fines-for-parking-on-his-own-land.html

''However, he told the doctor that Camden Council had been within its rights to penalise him. The judge ruled that although Dr Dawood owned "the subsoil" of the patch of ground, the tarmacked "surface" was subject to public access, so parking restrictions applied.

Refusing permission to appeal, Lord Justice Sedley said the case was “not an arguably correct approach to the law”.


So what that is saying, supports your case that this is Council paved land with public access, it's not fenced off, so it is NOT private land.

edwj2001

Thanks all. Defence is now submitted with all of your help and guidance.

caspermad

hi edwj2001

I had a pcn from es parking enforcement ltd then gladstones

it went on for over a year

i decided to take it to court and they dropped their claim and cancelled £245 pcn

my main point of defence is that the photo provided by them only shows the car parked over a 2min period .. and that they had failed to prove that the car did not leave the bay after the 10 min grace period

check es parking enforcement contract with the land owner and see if a 10 min grace period is provided if your car was photographed in a single snap shot and not photographed over a 10 min period then you have a strong case

good luck

edwj2001

Small update to this is we have now received the 5th claim form. No idea why it arrived at a later date than the other four as it was first chronologically but we have submitted a defence very similar to the other four.

On a related note we have also received a letter from Gladstone's asking us to provide ID to prove an amendment to the defendant's surname. The defendant has changed their surname in recent months so when we submitted the defence to the court we mentioned the correct name in the acknowledgement and defence. Gladstone's have obviously received the defence now and have asked us for ID to prove the new name, and for it to be sent to them by email. Are we under any obligation to provide this Gladstone's?