Group Nexus / CP Plus Ltd PCN ...already appealed

piggypower

Coupon-mad said:

piggypower said:

I am assuming there must be landowner authority, I cant see a reason why there would not be. 

There always is. That's not the point.

Hmm, sorry, maybe I missed it then, Gr1pr said about "no landowner authority" ... but you are saying there always is... 
What is the point!?

piggypower

Castle said:

piggypower said:

I guess what they want, is how I feel, just pay the £60 and then be done with all this faff. 

I'll be honest, looking at Google street view, the signs are large and placed at the entrance. However at night, I've no idea. I never remember seeing them or I would have done something about it I expect! I was tired and just trying to ensure I was headed towards the car park, not the HGV park. There certainly isnt any lights attached to the signs to illuminate them by the looks of google street view. 

I am assuming there must be landowner authority, I cant see a reason why there would not be. 

They may be readable in daylight but what about at 2.18am.

well indeed, I have no idea tbh and without going there on the same date next year at 2:18am, I will struggle to prove otherwise I guess

piggypower

Looking at this image taken from google street view... I am going to presume I was, as 2:18am, focused on the road signs and the street like was also likely not helping, causing shadows over the parking sign

piggypower

asked chat GPT to show what it may have looked like at 2:18am...


 to 

Nellymoser

Easy to see how you missed them.

piggypower said:

Coupon-mad said:

piggypower said:

I am assuming there must be landowner authority, I cant see a reason why there would not be. 

There always is. That's not the point.

Hmm, sorry, maybe I missed it then, Gr1pr said about "no landowner authority" ... but you are saying there always is... 
What is the point!?

You assume they have this but Nexus haven't provided you with any proof they do.
Have a read of some posts in the POPLA Decisions Announcement thread it may help you see the point.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81517566/#Comment_81517566

Gr1pr

piggypower said:

Coupon-mad said:

piggypower said:

I am assuming there must be landowner authority, I cant see a reason why there would not be. 

There always is. That's not the point.

Hmm, sorry, maybe I missed it then, Gr1pr said about "no landowner authority" ... but you are saying there always is... 
What is the point!?

By bringing it up, you put them to strict proof that they have it, an unredacted contract that is current and what authorities it gives,  so you put that doubt into the appeal or court case,  meaning that they have to prove that they have a valid current contract, that it meets the criteria they are imposing on the signs and on the NTK PCN letter etc

Many private parking companies dont like producing unredacted contracts, and when they do there are often flaws in them, like wordings,  clauses,  expired periods,  not signed or witnessed by the correct people. 

If they have it and produced it and it's all in order then the assumption would be correct,  but it's not fact until proven

Many appeals and cases are won on landowner authority and signage,  typically when there are issues,  which happens a lot, or the claimant discontinues for various reasons,  especially when they are found out 

So the point is that you and we assume that there are flaws in the case,  putting them to strict proof that they have covered every base, every possible weakness has been addressed,  no possible get out of jail free card

We read thousands of cases and reports and so we see numerous flaws, have a read through the discontinuations thread by Umkomaas,  have a read through the popla decisions thread, have a read of the blog on the contestor legal website   ( then tell us that all these cases are watertight and the defendant lost  )

Coupon-mad

Operators often offer no contest at POPLA if you use lots of points that cause them work. And some never disclose their landowner agreement so appellants who raise it, win.