Now at Mediation

Coupon-mad

Couple of errors:

UKCPM (Claimant)

Nope, full name of company as per the Claim form, including 'Ltd' or 'Limited'

'the parkingeye'

Nope, that is not a phrase that has any meaning.  That's a company called ParkingEye, not a piece of technology. You mean 'ANPR camera' or maybe it's a CCTV camera (you can tell by the images whether the camera tracks the car even when parked = CCTV, or whether it's ANPR which only tracks VRMs at the entrance/exit in moving traffic, one 'in' and one 'out' image).

However, there is no such legitimate interest where the requisite fee has been paid in full for the time stayed. 

Errrm, you copied that, so you haven't gone through it yet with a fine tooth comb.  You need to, that makes no sense and obviously needs editing to suit.

And it needs numbering rather than the bullet point dots but maybe that's just a fault of the draft document?

And you were not there as a consumer.  So, you need to remove the mentions of the CRA 2015 because you can't rely on that law.

Finally, I can't see you've included the usual paragraph challenging UKCPM to prove that they ahve landowner authority and what the site boundaries and restrictions and rules in that agreement actually say.

MrEnigma

Coupon-mad said:

Couple of errors:

UKCPM (Claimant)

Nope, full name of company as per the Claim form, including 'Ltd' or 'Limited'

'the parkingeye'

Nope, that is not a phrase that has any meaning.  That's a company called ParkingEye, not a piece of technology. You mean 'ANPR camera' or maybe it's a CCTV camera (you can tell by the images whether the camera tracks the car even when parked = CCTV, or whether it's ANPR which only tracks VRMs at the entrance/exit in moving traffic, one 'in' and one 'out' image).

However, there is no such legitimate interest where the requisite fee has been paid in full for the time stayed. 

Errrm, you copied that, so you haven't gone through it yet with a fine tooth comb.  You need to, that makes no sense and obviously needs editing to suit.

And it needs numbering rather than the bullet point dots but maybe that's just a fault of the draft document?

And you were not there as a consumer.  So, you need to remove the mentions of the CRA 2015 because you can't rely on that law.

Finally, I can't see you've included the usual paragraph challenging UKCPM to prove that they ahve landowner authority and what the site boundaries and restrictions and rules in that agreement actually say.

Thank you kind sir, I will amend document with the points you have raised. Im just glad its making better sense, but indeed needs further work. Is it possible to provide links or indeed text to the UKCPM to prove that they have landowner authority? 

Coupon-mad

Sir?!  I'm a laydeeee! 

The text you want is already in the example WS in the NEWBIES thread and you seem to have removed it.

1505grandad

"The full name of the claimant - as per claim form in front of you - should be in the heading.

The claimant is stated as UKCPM

The evidence signs are for HX Car Park Management "

So the evidence signs for HX Car Park Management were included in error in your previous version?

MrEnigma

1505grandad said:

"The full name of the claimant - as per claim form in front of you - should be in the heading.

The claimant is stated as UKCPM

The evidence signs are for HX Car Park Management "

So the evidence signs for HX Car Park Management were included in error in your previous version?

Yes sir/madam

MrEnigma

Coupon-mad said:

Sir?!  I'm a laydeeee! 

The text you want is already in the example WS in the NEWBIES thread and you seem to have removed it.

Thanks Lady.
I will take another look.

MrEnigma

Updated draft with 3 more exhibits, Landowership section added.
Think im nearly there now.
Thank you once again kind Ladies & Gentlemen

1505grandad

If the claimant is UK Car Park Management Ltd  -  still not in full on WS as advised  -  then they are an IPC AoS member. Therefore reference to BPA CoP is irrelevant.

Have not checked rest of the draft WS. 

MrEnigma

1505grandad said:

If the claimant is UK Car Park Management Ltd  -  still not in full on WS as advised  -  then they are an IPC AoS member. Therefore reference to BPA CoP is irrelevant.

Have not checked rest of the draft WS. 

Im leaving all details of claimant/ defendant off the WS, as previously advised.

MrEnigma

OK headers and footer added.
Header stating UKCPM
So I need to remove all references to BPA CoP? , previously asked to put in about land ownership?
I think I need to head to confused.com    
OK, so Im to remove section 16 referencing all BPA CoP ?