LBC - I wouldn't even call the car parked, rather "stopped".

Coupon-mad

You need to mention what I said about the pre action protocol.

MoneySavingClown

Coupon-mad said:

You need to mention what I said about the pre action protocol.

Ah you're right, added in bold below. Do I understand correctly that we would only dispute the added £70 charge once we get to defence stage?

-----------------------------------

13 September 2021

Reference xxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs

I’m writing with reference to your letter dated 2 September 2021.

(a) I am seeking debt advice and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017 but

(b) I deny any debt in any case, due to the woeful signs;

(c) A driver has no chance to agree to any terms and this is a ‘concealed pitfall or trap’ (Beavis case phrase identifying penal charges that would fail).  What appears to be public highway is being operated by a predatory ticketing camera system, as if it were a commercial private car park;

(d) I wish to see all evidence showing the alleged lack of permit as the photos provided are inconclusive images of the rear of the car and not the dashboard. I require this evidence to understand and identify the issues in dispute as required in the pre action protocol;

(e) I have sent your client a subject access request

Yours faithfully,

My Name

Redx

The defence will object to all the extra spurious charges , not just the fictional debt collector add-on

The £70 add-on comes under Wilkinson and also the Recorder Cohen judgment

MoneySavingClown

Thank you I'll start to think about wording for the defence after I send the email to the MP.

I'll send my dispute to the solicitors tomorrow if there's nothing more I should amend.

Redx

Looking at the pictures , it's not obvious to me either , just looks the same as a public road etc , so for me it breaks Lord Dennings red hand rule , because I would have no idea that it's private or restricted

FaceHead

Even as a casual observer, it's clear that no contract is formed here. Six minutes can't possibly be adequate to read the signage and then it be inferred that the contract is accepted.

Even if the signage was good, it would seem reasonable that you'd stopped, seen them, read them, rejected the contract and moved on.

However, (again as a casual observer) a coherent defence couldn't be 'I didn't accept the contract' whilst also arguing 'I didn't see the signs saying it was private land'

KeithP

Redx said:

Looking at the pictures , it's not obvious to me either , just looks the same as a public road etc...

Did you look at the GSV image I linked to?

Perhaps I should've included an image directly into my post, like this...


This is the point where the PPC will allege the OP left the public highway.

Yes there are no signs, but the transition from public road to private road seems quite clear to me.


And see those two car parks fenced in either side of that road?
I wonder why the drivers of those cars didn't think to park beyond the end of the yellow lines in that picture, rather than paying to be fenced in?

That's really a question the OP should've asked himself.

MoneySavingClown

Update: The LBC dispute has been sent 14/9/21.

Can it be argued that there were no signs at the entrance indicating that I was entering private land, and I didn't have a chance to accept the contract in the sign where I was stopped, in the 6 minutes I was there (4 minutes from the time of the photo)?



If you follow the road round, there's a Private Land sign there, but that's not where I entered. Is the change of paving enough reason to charge me for being there?

Redx

Council's around Manchester have similar schemes , so although I am aware having now seen the pictures above , it's still not crystal clear to me ,  due to lack of clear signage making it crystal clear , as in Lord Dennings red hand rule ! So I agree with the OP , especially when it will be in the CoP that entrance signage must clearly show it with suitable boundaries

I cannot see how any judge would know the difference if they were in the OP s shoes

Thanks for the extra pictures and clarifications

Coupon-mad

The lack of signs is a powerful defence to an alleged breach of a contract you cannot have seen, read or agreed to.