Ccj and defence

shortysky

Fruitcake said:

shortysky said:

Umkomaas said:

But no matter when I take them it will have the background light from the street light at the front of the main road! 

That's not a problem as that would (presumably) have been working at the time. What you don't want to do is to add flash to it and light the whole place up like a Christmas tree. 

Do you have a friend perhaps who might be able to do this for you, given you have your little one to care for - first priority always! 🙂

Yes will have to see if anyone’s willing to help me out. Do I take the pictures close up or standing away from them? 

 
Follow the route you took on the date in question with photos taken far enough away that the entrance, one way system, and exit can be seen, as well as the (poor) placement of signs. According to GCV, there were signs on the right (driver's side) as you drive through, but they had been removed in GSV images from 2018. 
The cynic in me says this was a deliberate act to remove signs a driver was likely to see, and leave only the ones on the passenger side that would be hidden by other parked vehicles.

If this is still the case, make sure you get photos of the (now) missing signs. Photos of signs and the PDT machine hidden behind cars will be a bonus.
Get close ups of the signs as well to see what they actually say.
The earlier signs say Starpark, which is a trading name of CEL. It could be argued that this is a different company, so CEL are not the company named on the signs, therefore they cannot form a contract with the driver. IT's important to see what scammer's name is now on the signs.

Hi I did drive through and have saved the footage from my dash cam! There is not signs to the right anymore they moved them to the left,looks like the signs have messed with a few times moving them here and there, taking them down completely at one point. I’m not sure if I actually saw names on the signs, I did post some but can’t really see the small print on the blue signs. Doesn’t say how much the charge would be either. Just all seems dodgy to me.

shortysky

Fruitcake said:

As already mentioned, you won't need these images for a while, but do compare them with any that you take in the near future to see what has changed, and what hasn't. 

Heading south with the entrance to the service road on the right, image taken in 2012.



Driver's view as they enter the service road, image from 2012. The bank is number 42, outside the scam zone. There doesn't appear to be a number 40, so possibly the bank took up both buildings but just kept one number. If there are now any entrance signs on the driver's side, it will be a good idea to take any photos you can get with the lamp post or windscreen pillar obscuring them to show easy how it would be for a driver to miss them.



Looking back towards the entrance of the service road, image from 2016.



Scam zone and Pizza Express, image from 2016. Note the pair of ANPR scameras and sign underneath. 




Four signs and the scameras on the driver's side, image from 2016. The signs are in the name of Starpark.



Driver's side signs and scameras removed, image from 2018.



Pizza Express and the business next door, clearly showing the cake shop is at number 34.

Aww thanks so much! I’m not sure which side I came in on if it was left or right. So the end bays are not even part of the same land that they are charging me for.  It’s odd how many times the signs have been moved around. I did check and I don’t think there is signs on the right I will have to double check. Scameras 😂 

shortysky

Fruitcake said:

Use anything at all that will help your case.
You can check with the local planning department if advertising consent was approved for the signs, and if so when it was approved. I'm not sure if you will be able to determine when the signs were changed though.

ANPR scameras appear on the 2016 GSV images but not on the one (and there is only one) image from 2018. The GSV image of the entrance and exit are from 2012, so only help with setting the scene.

I'll show all of this in a sequence of images to give an idea of the changes over time. Any photos you can get will help greatly, especially if we can show noting has changed since the GSV images were taken. Images from dates either side of the alleged event are always useful.

 

I will take as many pictures as I can day and night, left and right side, just a shame we’re still in look down, and pizza express has closed down. As won’t be able to get a image of how busy that little road got! I can try find out when the signs were changed I could ask the bank or the other little shops that are there. I actually did ask the man who was in the van, parked in front of the pay machine how long they had been there. I said more then a year he said probably. So could do with actual dates! 

shortysky

Fruitcake said:

Coupon-mad said:

I didn’t think then ANPR took a photo of where you was parked? I thought it just took photos coming in and out? 

Obviously, that is true, so why are you asking questions as if it matters?  You can surely see this is a strong defence point. 

You were not parked on the land listed in the Particulars of Claim and you are the only witness.

That's not quite true.

The NTK and rejection letter specify 34 - 38 Woodford Rd.
The PoC on the claim form just says Woodford Rd car park.

Woodford road is several miles long and has six other car parks along it for, a church, a nursing home, a golf course, a clothes shop, a filling station and an architect's business. 
Typical vague PoC.

I didn’t notice that the claim form just says Woodford road. They need to decide what part of the land they are taking about and own. As the first letter states the address. So they either made a error with the letter or just pushing there luck. I can’t see them not owning one little part of that road? 

Fruitcake

The scammers won't own the land. As C-m already mentioned, the NTK is a statutory instrument, so the claim can only be based on the particulars in that NTK. They can't (shouldn't) issue a NTK for one very specific piece of land, then make a claim for a motorist parking on a different piece of land. To do that, they would need to issue a new NTK specifying the other piece of land, but they are too late to issue one that would be PoFA complaint.

If it is a mistake, tough. They issued a NTK for a very specific piece of land. The car was parked elsewhere. Next door or the next town doesn't matter. It wasn't parked on the land they specified.

shortysky

Hi I’ve just received a notice of proposal allocation to the small claims track? Does anyone know what I should do with this? Says it must be completed by the 4 of may. Thank you. Sorry if I’ve not replied been very busy. 

Umkomaas

shortysky said:

Hi I’ve just received a notice of proposal allocation to the small claims track? Does anyone know what I should do with this? Says it must be completed by the 4 of may. Thank you. Sorry if I’ve not replied been very busy. 

Everything you need to know is detailed in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post.  The section headed 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO AND BY WHEN!' was written specifically for the forum by legally qualified regular @bargepole.  Please read it and get ahead of the game so you know what to expect as you head towards your court hearing. 

Miss any of the prescribed steps and you LOSE.

shortysky

I don’t really have time right now. Might just tell them I will pay the original amount of the first ticket get it out the way. 

Umkomaas

shortysky said:

I don’t really have time right now. Might just tell them I will pay the original amount of the first ticket get it out the way. 

Did you really think this was going to be easy peasy, taking candy from a baby?

Redx

They are not going to accept a lower amount , especially not the original PCN amount

You read the thread with the defence template by Coupon mad a few weeks ago

Your steps are listed in there , plus by Bargepole in the newbies FAQ sticky thread as well , read them