Letter before claim from ELMS Legal

Snakes_Belly

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5488274,-2.6286687,3a,75y,192.64h,88.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swqry0e9Xzso0PDPLITy1AA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Looking at the space where the driver parked (silver car) and the space next to it, the space that the driver parked in looks tight but it is faintly marked out as if intended to be a space. It has the hallmarks of a space but looks tight.

There does not seem to be much signage to form a contract.

The spaces in the main part of the car park look to be poorly marked out.

Any chance that you could measure that space and the one next to it because I don't think that it is big enough to be a space but they have marked it out. You could then mark out the sizes on an image.

What they should have done if it was not a proper space is to mark a yellow cross on the end.

Coupon-mad

You did find the posts about Excel v Wilkinson, as posted about in your thread earlier, by D P Dance?  It covers the added £60 and why it's double recovery according to a Judge who is now a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge.

Ralph-y

"what was the reason you where there ?"

vaccines ?

Ralph

Motty2014

Ralph-y said:

"what was the reason you where there ?"

vaccines ?

Ralph

No, this was back in 2018.... I think it was shopping maybe? The pay and display etc. was all paid correctly

Snakes_Belly

How have they described the parking transgression on the letter of claim?  I can't quite get my head around whether they are saying that you have not parked in a bay or that you have gone over the white line in a parking bay.  It has to be one or the other to enable you to produce a defence.   

Snakes_Belly

Snakes_Belly said:

How have they described the parking transgression on the letter of claim?  I can't quite get my head around whether they are saying that you have not parked in a bay or that you have gone over the white line in a parking bay.  It has to be one or the other to enable you to produce a defence.   

Either way it can be defended but you need to know what the transgression is that you are defending. 

I think that this is a try on and they are hedging their bets so they need to be explicit.

Ralph-y

Bryan House is NHS so complain to PALS and the Trust.

Ralph

nosferatu1001

"parked beyond the bay markings" would include parking over a line AND not being parked in a bay

Snakes_Belly

nosferatu1001 said:

"parked beyond the bay markings" would include parking over a line AND not being parked in a bay

Thanks.

It looks like a bay but not as wide which would cause a motorist to touch on the white line (which is very faded). They should have marked this with a yellow cross if motorists were not intended to park there. It is misleading and not the first time that they have done this.

This is very similar to Daniel's case.   

Motty2014

Snakes_Belly said:

Snakes_Belly said:

How have they described the parking transgression on the letter of claim?  I can't quite get my head around whether they are saying that you have not parked in a bay or that you have gone over the white line in a parking bay.  It has to be one or the other to enable you to produce a defence.   

Either way it can be defended but you need to know what the transgression is that you are defending. 

I think that this is a try on and they are hedging their bets so they need to be explicit.

I have tried to add the image of the PCN to show what they have included:

Doesn't exactly give much detail!