PCN from Parking Control Management

Not_A_Hope

I think your para 7 should be renumbered as 5 before adding the rest of the template. You have added an unnecessary 'within' to this para and might want to add briefly that the permit failed and was provided by the claimant. 

MadMunk

The joys of copy paste and tweaking bits here and there @Not_A_Hope.  Something to do with wood and trees comes to mind   Yeah, I kept the same numbers in case I cut too much out from the original.  Makes it easier if I keep the same numbers and only fix that in the final draft.  Else 7 becomes 5, becomes god knows what.  Too much confusion for my tiny brain.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle in question is used infrequently and remains parked the rest of the time.

4. The parking rights stated within the Defendant’s tenancy agreement allow for quiet enjoyment, and use, of communal areas and parking.  The Defendant displays a permit as a courtesy not an obligation.

7. The Defendant had displayed a permit upon leaving their vehicle.  The permit failed between visits to the vehicle.  The Defendant expected that said permit would remain displayed between visits to their vehicle. That is the intended purpose of the products. Products which are sold to consumers and therefore subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Coupon-mad

The permit failed between visits to the vehicle. 

I don't think that explains what happened.  I would say the permit was fully visible but very flimsy and had curled up in sunlight, despite being untouched and within the holder supplied by the Claimant.  The Defendant avers that these permits are not fit for purpose and any contract was frustrated not by any action or conduct of the Defendant, but by the Claimant's unsuitably flimsy paper. 

Le_Kirk

1505grandad said:

"Thanks gents."
A heads-up  -  at least one is a "Lady"

Selects gruff voice "but it ain't me"!
Not sure about your paragraph 7, surely you meant to say that the permit or permit holder supplied by the claimant was not fit for purpose.

MadMunk

I gathered it was you from grandads original post.  Twas hastily deleted but I caught it before it was gone.  My apologies m'lady.  Good gruff voice though, well practiced

It seems there's a fine line between too much info and not enough.  I took your earlier post a little too literally I think.

Back to business then!

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle in question is used infrequently and remains parked the rest of the time.

4. The parking rights stated within the Defendant’s tenancy agreement allow for quiet enjoyment, and use, of communal areas and parking.  The Defendant displays a permit as a courtesy not an obligation.

7. The Defendant had displayed a permit upon leaving their vehicle.  The permit was fully visible but very flimsy and had curled up in sunlight, despite being untouched and within the holder supplied by the Claimant.  The Defendant avers that these permits are not fit for purpose and any contract was frustrated not by any action or conduct of the Defendant, but by the Claimant's unsuitably flimsy paper permit and holder.  The Defendant expected that said permit would remain displayed within its holder between visits to their vehicle. That is the intended purpose of the products. Products which are sold to consumers and therefore subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Le_Kirk

MadMunk said:

I gathered it was you from grandads original post.  Twas hastily deleted but I caught it before it was gone.  My apologies m'lady.  Good gruff voice though, well practiced

Still not me, it is @Coupon-mad

MadMunk

Hahaha, well... male, female, binary, non binary, unspecified.  Makes no difference.  In my world you're all simply "experts".

Coupon-mad

MadMunk said:

I gathered it was you from grandads original post.  Twas hastily deleted but I caught it before it was gone.  My apologies m'lady.  Good gruff voice though, well practiced

It seems there's a fine line between too much info and not enough.  I took your earlier post a little too literally I think.

Back to business then!

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle in question is used infrequently and remains parked the rest of the time.

4. The parking rights stated within the Defendant’s tenancy agreement allow for quiet enjoyment, and use, of communal areas and parking.  The Defendant displays a permit as a courtesy not an obligation.

7. The Defendant had displayed a permit upon leaving their vehicle.  The permit was fully visible but very flimsy and had curled up in sunlight, despite being untouched and within the holder supplied by the Claimant.  The Defendant avers that these permits are not fit for purpose and any contract was frustrated not by any action or conduct of the Defendant, but by the Claimant's unsuitably flimsy paper permit and holder.  The Defendant expected that said permit would remain displayed within its holder between visits to their vehicle. That is the intended purpose of the products. Products which are sold to consumers and therefore subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Very good, she says in a ladylike voice...

MadMunk

LOL, apologies coupon, and thank you very much for taking the time to review.  All the stuff I cut out of the original will go into the WS instead.

I'll be back to post again if I get a letter from the courts summoning me to defend myself against these hoodwinking ambulance chasers.

MadMunk

I was digging around looking for paperwork the other day and came across something linked to this which both amused me and made me wonder... is this something I can submit as evidence in the arena of conflicting information from PCM if the dullards are mental enough to take me to court?

On the one had we have the signs, their process etc of... YOU ARE GUILTY! Screw the facts

While on the other we have this...  which pretty much says I did what was expected and checked before leaving my vehicle.  I'm assuming they think folks don't keep such paperwork.  Transferable permits step 4.  Trollolololol



It says nothing about having to return in case the permit self fails.