UKPC ticket, not sure how and limited time to respond!

KeithP

B789 said:

goonergaz70 said:

Thanks for the input so far, unfortunately I can't change my claim so I can't start saying I left the car park and returned later...anyway here are the documents including the contract;

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uix9j5qp9dmcblo/AAARTwKjC5p2umC-hGHwt3EIa?dl=0

What claim are you making? It is the PPC making the claim. Also, you are still ignoring all requests to show the redacted contract you said you had.

@B789, that post you have quoted does say...

goonergaz70 said:

...anyway here are the documents including the contract;

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uix9j5qp9dmcblo/AAARTwKjC5p2umC-hGHwt3EIa?dl=0

  

B789

KeithP said:

B789 said:

goonergaz70 said:

Thanks for the input so far, unfortunately I can't change my claim so I can't start saying I left the car park and returned later...anyway here are the documents including the contract;

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uix9j5qp9dmcblo/AAARTwKjC5p2umC-hGHwt3EIa?dl=0

What claim are you making? It is the PPC making the claim. Also, you are still ignoring all requests to show the redacted contract you said you had.

@B789, that post you have quoted does say...

goonergaz70 said:

...anyway here are the documents including the contract;

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uix9j5qp9dmcblo/AAARTwKjC5p2umC-hGHwt3EIa?dl=0

  

My bad. I still had the original DropBox page open which didn't have the contract in it. I have now refreshed that page and the contract is indeed there. 

goonergaz70

B789 said:

goonergaz70 said:

Thanks for the input so far, unfortunately I can't change my claim so I can't start saying I left the car park and returned later...anyway here are the documents including the contract;

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uix9j5qp9dmcblo/AAARTwKjC5p2umC-hGHwt3EIa?dl=0

What claim are you making? It is the PPC making the claim. Also, you are still ignoring all requests to show the redacted contract you said you had.

Sorry, by 'my claim' I mean that I have not at any point tried to say that I entered the car park more than once...in retrospect I could have said that but I didn't so can't really add that now.

The contract is within the link is it not? There are 3 files, the picture/plan, the documentation which I have redacted using red and then the contract!?

goonergaz70

Ha, now I'm trying to catchup!

Dropbox – New folder – Simplify your life

Anyway, seems you have it

Thanks again all!

Fruitcake

The contract looks very tightly written and appears to confirm to The Companies Act 2006 requirements, which does not surprise me since JLL are the landowner/landholder.

The only chink I can see is the missing pages at the end, so it needs highlighting. You could suggest that there are exclusions/exemptions to the Ts and Cs in those missing pages that would materially affect the charge.

I couldn't see a map of the site with an identification key in the contract, although it is mentioned in said contract.

goonergaz70

Fruitcake said:

The contract looks very tightly written and appears to confirm to The Companies Act 2006 requirements, which does not surprise me since JLL are the landowner/landholder.

The only chink I can see is the missing pages at the end, so it needs highlighting. You could suggest that there are exclusions/exemptions to the Ts and Cs in those missing pages that would materially affect the charge.

I couldn't see a map of the site with an identification key in the contract, although it is mentioned in said contract.

Assuming that's the missing part and the picture of the car park with signs is also part of the missing pages?

Thanks again.

Fruitcake

You can assume anything you like. You just have to state it in a reasonable way.

Use terms such as, "on the balance of probabilities", and, "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (a reasonable person), and what a reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus) might reasonably believe on the balance of probabilities.

If something has been omitted then it is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities that it does not exist, or does not support the claimant's case. If it did exist then it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that it would be produced.

Omitting potentially relevant parts of the contract would also fall under "Redactions in Disclosure" which are normally not permitted unless they contain commercially sensitive information such as costs/earnings/payments etcetera. Hancock v Promontoria refers. This was an appeal case and therefore persuasive on the lower courts.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

goonergaz70

B789 said:

KeithP said:

Coupon-mad said:

Fruitcake said:

Well, thanks to all (if I've missed anyone apologies) - my appeal was successful!

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

XX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as exceeded maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • Signage. Not visible from the all the parking spaces. Including entrance signage • Insufficient notice of the sum of the PCN itself. It does not meet with section 18 of the British Parking Association code of practice. The font is miniscule and is illegible in most photographs. The appellant mentions the Beavis supreme court ruling in relation to the sum and its prominence. They added a previous 2016 POPLA ruling and Lord Denning red letter ruling. • No landowner authority. Section 7 of the British Parking Association code of practice. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. They added ANPR. They added that the PCN is not Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 compliant. They added that the operator have not included a map. The appellant included photographic evidence of their PDF document in support of their appeal. The appellant included photographic evidence of their in support of their appeal.