Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with £50, £60 or £70 PCN and no £ DRA fee on the sign

Coupon-mad

Yes.

I think the HHJ Murch decision against CEL shows that the conveyor belt automated POC approach to bulk litigation in parking cases breaks court rules, as well as making it as difficult as possible for consumers.  That plus the use of old addresses.

It's vital that the DLUHC realise that banning the use of certain words & phrases in letters is merely scratching the surface.  The conduct in parking bulk litigation is MUCH worse than that.

The DLUHC do say something in the blurb like 'tell us what we are missing' so it's more of an open Call than the heavily industry-focussed questions might make it seem.

Le_Kirk

....... or even MURCH worse. I'll get me coat!

GrannyKate

Sainsbury's, Longbridge, West Midlands. Near lots of shops, college and railway station.  £70 penalty charge reducing to £40

KeithP

Thanks for that picture @GrannyKate, but I don't think it is of good enough quality to be used.
For example, where exactly on that sign does it mention £70?
Perhaps you have a better image.

Of course that image is a perfect example of a sign where the 'penalty' is not at all clear.  

GrannyKate

Sorry is this one better.  Sainsbury's Longbridge

Coupon-mad

ECP sign with £70 in "tiny" and the fatal wards at the bottom that they are acting as agents "on behalf of" a named principal.

Epic fail.

They can't even litigate in their name because they haven't made the contract their own. This is basic, trite law. Fairlie v Fenton applies.

Anyway: good evidence @GrannyKate

Freesoul01

Amberley court, Bournemouth  

Coupon-mad

Freesoul01 said:

Amberley court, Bournemouth  

That one is interesting because, although it's £100 (minuscule text) which isn't what we are gathering here, UKCPM actually threaten trespassers with PROSECUTION.

Which they can't do as an agent because they aren't the landowners so there's no loss or damage caused to them (a requirement to show loss or damages still applies, re trespass, because that's tort law, not contract).

The word PROSECUTED is in large letters so that's the deterrent.  Not the hidden £100.

Interesting too, that they restrict visitors to 3 hours. In a residential estate.  What?!?

Coupon-mad

Picked this up from another thread:

Butterfly Walk Car Park
Denmark Hill
London
SE5 8RW


Quite apart from the fact that CEL can't sue using that sign because it has their principal's name emblazoned on it as making the offer, this is a good example of yet more signs altered by peeling stickers.

And I found you can buy 20 outdoor business sign stickers (50x50mm) for a tenner (less if buying in bulk or the much smaller stickers needed for a simple alteration of one line of text):



https://stickersandthat.co.uk/shop/custom-outdoor-stickers/?utm_source=Google%20Shopping&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping%20Product%20Feed&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=12198&gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9rSoBhCiARIsAFOiplnU6966eqDXTteN7Q4nCaVInQ6pCpvbI3WXIGbNiOVO_NCoh0YZWQ0aAhjPEALw_wcB

B789

Coupon-mad said:

And I found you can buy six outdoor business sign stickers (large 80x80) for a under a tenner (less if buying in bulk):

https://stickersandthat.co.uk/shop/custom-outdoor-stickers/?utm_source=Google%20Shopping&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping%20Product%20Feed&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=12198&gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9rSoBhCiARIsAFOiplnU6966eqDXTteN7Q4nCaVInQ6pCpvbI3WXIGbNiOVO_NCoh0YZWQ0aAhjPEALw_wcB

Now wouldn't that be interesting if some mischievous pranksters got together and went around altering the scammers signs with stickers. A bit like the ULEZ warriors and the camera!