Country Claim Bussiness Centre - UKPC - Parking

furac40

Coupon-mad said:

The section about a requirement for prominent and clear 'surface markings' to delineate bays (as opposed to any places that a driver is not invited to park) should be nothing new to a BPA member because it is a requirement of statute law - the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Non-negotiable.

Thank you for your help.

If you don't mind can you elaborate on the logic behind the above paragraph. I can't see a correlation with the CRA 2015.

furac40

From  the template:

"15.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one ............".

Do you agree the "new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG" must be replaced by "new statutory CoP recently finalised by the DLHC"?

Umkomaas

furac40 said:

Coupon-mad said:

The section about a requirement for prominent and clear 'surface markings' to delineate bays (as opposed to any places that a driver is not invited to park) should be nothing new to a BPA member because it is a requirement of statute law - the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Non-negotiable.

Thank you for your help.

If you don't mind can you elaborate on the logic behind the above paragraph. I can't see a correlation with the CRA 2015.

Coupon-mad is no longer here, gone from the forum.

patient_dream

furac40 said:

From  the template:

Do you agree the "new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG" must be replaced by "new statutory CoP recently finalised by the DLHC"?

The ideal point to make to a court is as Bargepole said in this post

11 February at 10:37AM   <<< CLICK

This makes it very difficult for DCBL 

furac40

Coupon-mad said:

The section about a requirement for prominent and clear 'surface markings' to delineate bays (as opposed to any places that a driver is not invited to park) should be nothing new to a BPA member because it is a requirement of statute law - the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Non-negotiable.

Can anyone elaborate on what Coupon-mad said? I can't see a correlation with the CRA 2015

Fruitcake

The CRA is about fairness to consumers. It is not fair to knowingly or deliberately mislead a motorist by having faded, missing, or confusing signage or surface markings instead of clearly marked *do not park here* places such as cross hatched areas with an explanation on the signs what those markings mean.
It is reasonable to assume that no parking areas will be clearly marked. Not doing so could be considered to be entrapment, deliberately enticing a motorist to park in an unmarked area purely to increase revenue. 

furac40

Fruitcake said:

The CRA is about fairness to consumers. It is not fair to knowingly or deliberately mislead a motorist by having faded, missing, or confusing signage or surface markings instead of clearly marked *do not park here* places such as cross hatched areas with an explanation on the signs what those markings mean.
It is reasonable to assume that no parking areas will be clearly marked. Not doing so could be considered to be entrapment, deliberately enticing a motorist to park in an unmarked area purely to increase revenue. 

Thank you, much appreciated.

furac40

Hi,

I've submitted my defence 10 days ago.

It was acknowledged on the MCOL portal and a letter from HMCT&S was received a few days later.

The letter confirms the defence was received and that the claimant has 28 days to respond. If the C wishes to proceed he must contact the Court and subsequently the Court will inform the D.

There was no DQ attached to this letter.

My question is if I should wait for the Court to contact me or I should go ahead and download the DQ from the internet and send it to the C as instructed in bargepole's post. 

D_P_Dance

Is this a matter worthy of a complaint to Trading Standards I wonder?

furac40

Any advice please.