Civil enforcement error

lydecker_777

Map of the site,

ANPR cameras in blue and signs in yellow,

Only one entrance/exit onto the site 

James_Poisson

lydecker_777 said:

So ive replied with the following:

"The main concern I have at the moment is as you've confirmed the cameras are currently not legal in terms of a planning perspective, (until the retrospective planning application is submitted), the company have been using the cameras to fine and prosecute motorists for alleged parking infringements?

I currently have a county court claim in waiting against myself for being in the car park for 12 minutes?

The parking company responsible are in effect committing perjury by lying to a court of law that all their procedures are correct and relevant permissions have been granted when they issue a particulars of claim via the county court .

Would the lack of planning permission until the retrospective application make the ' infringements' invalid ?

Or what steps can ********* council take against the illegal business operation that has been utilising these cameras to fraudulently invoice members of the public over a number of years ?

The revenue generated from the use of these illegally mounted cameras over the number of years they have been operating needs to be examined by a relevant authority to determine if they have been legally obtained.

Could you please advise me if possible on what authority I should report this too?"

So regarding the county court claim , this certainly bolsters my defence if it did get to court ..

Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are sending letters to an authority in particular you should not be making false accusations like the above (my bold) you have used completely the wrong terminology no private parking company can issue "fines" or "prosecute" anyone. They are only speculative invoices,

Coupon-mad

Re the claim, I see no breach stated in the POC, so use the appropriate para 3 as explained & linked in the Template Defence. 

lydecker_777

James_Poisson said:

lydecker_777 said:

So ive replied with the following:

"The main concern I have at the moment is as you've confirmed the cameras are currently not legal in terms of a planning perspective, (until the retrospective planning application is submitted), the company have been using the cameras to fine and prosecute motorists for alleged parking infringements?

I currently have a county court claim in waiting against myself for being in the car park for 12 minutes?

The parking company responsible are in effect committing perjury by lying to a court of law that all their procedures are correct and relevant permissions have been granted when they issue a particulars of claim via the county court .

Would the lack of planning permission until the retrospective application make the ' infringements' invalid ?

Or what steps can ********* council take against the illegal business operation that has been utilising these cameras to fraudulently invoice members of the public over a number of years ?

The revenue generated from the use of these illegally mounted cameras over the number of years they have been operating needs to be examined by a relevant authority to determine if they have been legally obtained.

Could you please advise me if possible on what authority I should report this too?"

So regarding the county court claim , this certainly bolsters my defence if it did get to court ..

Sorry to be pedantic, but if you are sending letters to an authority in particular you should not be making false accusations like the above (my bold) you have used completely the wrong terminology no private parking company can issue "fines" or "prosecute" anyone. They are only speculative invoices,

True , it was a hasty reply while at work, however now it's reached the county court stage , it's a bit more serious ?

lydecker_777

Coupon-mad said:

Re the claim, I see no breach stated in the POC, so use the appropriate para 3 as explained & linked in the Template Defence. 

Thanks for that ...does it matter that the original NTK was for exceeding 90 minutes ? And then it only changed to t&C's after I complained?

Le_Kirk

You can only defend against what is pleaded, i.e. in the POC.

lydecker_777

Right that's understood,

So on the basis of entering the carpark at 11:30 pm at night , and being fortunate enough to see the vague unlit sign on entry is this one, 

Maximum terms apply 

Which is the original NTK sent to me ?

Now as I have proven on the car park plan above there are not many signs covering the site, and the ones that do are vague ..

But as couponmad said previously the signs state maximum parking times apply between 6:30am -11-30pm.

So the original NTK was for a. Parking for 90 minutes which has been disproven..

B. Also parking outside the times specified on the signage - 11:40pm to 11:52pm

So the original NTK is clearly invalid on those points..and due process has not been followed prior to starting a court claim .

Coupon-mad

But none of that goes into your defence because you can only defend against what is pleaded in the POC. No breach is pleaded.

lydecker_777

Right ok, understood ..

So the breach is not being a permit holder ?

Castle

lydecker_777 said:

Right ok, understood ..

So the breach is not being a permit holder ?

No, it doesn't say that.