We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Driver Leaving Site NtK - 1st Appeal Rejected

2»

Comments

  • The only photos they sent were of the vehicle and pictures of the signage (which does point out boundaries) but none of the main “offence” of leaving site or pictures of anybody in, driving or leaving the car, I don’t see what they can have and if they did, why it is not included in the evidence sent with the NtK.

    Thank you all again for the reassurances, hopefully will all be sorted in the coming days 😊
  • James_Poisson
    James_Poisson Posts: 386 Forumite
    100 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    The only photos they sent were of the vehicle and pictures of the signage (which does point out boundaries) but none of the main “offence” of leaving site or pictures of anybody in, driving or leaving the car, I don’t see what they can have and if they did, why it is not included in the evidence sent with the NtK.

    Thank you all again for the reassurances, hopefully will all be sorted in the coming days 😊
    What exactly does it say about  boundaries I have never seen that on a parking sign?
    There is no "offence" that word is specifically listed in the joint COP as must not be used.
    They very rarely have any pictures of anybody.
    It will not be "sorted in the coming days" why do you think that?

  • ChirpyChicken
    ChirpyChicken Posts: 2,445 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    The only photos they sent were of the vehicle and pictures of the signage (which does point out boundaries) but none of the main “offence” of leaving site or pictures of anybody in, driving or leaving the car, I don’t see what they can have and if they did, why it is not included in the evidence sent with the NtK.

    Thank you all again for the reassurances, hopefully will all be sorted in the coming days 😊
    What exactly does it say about  boundaries I have never seen that on a parking sign?
    There is no "offence" that word is specifically listed in the joint COP as must not be used.
    They very rarely have any pictures of anybody.
    It will not be "sorted in the coming days" why do you think that?

    Yes it will be cancelled.
    This is one appeal thats easy to win at the IAS.
    Ive put money on it🤣🤣
  • James_Poisson
    James_Poisson Posts: 386 Forumite
    100 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Yes it will be cancelled.
    This is one appeal thats easy to win at the IAS.
    Ive put money on it🤣🤣
           
    :#  :D
  • It will not be "sorted in the coming days" why do you think that?

    Just that I’d heard it will be possibly in the next 7-10 days… IAS says they will respond in 5 working days.

    you’re possibly right on the boundary, the image they sent on the letter doesn’t look like a sign, just an image of the boundary, not sure if that image is on the car park signage, probably not I’ll take a look tomorrow.

  • ChirpyChickenYes it will be cancelled.
    This is one appeal thats easy to win at the IAS.
    Ive put money on it🤣🤣
    I’ll happily send you the money for a pint if/when I win! 😁😂
  • The three images at the bottom are obviously master copies of the signage and not images from site or date stamped.
    The aerial view is obviously just from Google Earth alleging where certain signage is meant to be, it tells you nothing except probably where the sign erector was advised to put various signs, they may or may not be there now, and it is probably dated years ago if at all. It certainly is not a boundary plan it certainly will not be displayed on site.
    That on site photo could be anywhere on site but all are very blurry.
    That is a huge car park, you could possibly wander off site at any point who knows and the entrance signage is as usual rubbish they are twisting Muppets:






  • That is a huge car park, you could possibly wander off site at any point who knows and the entrance signage is as usual rubbish they are twisting Muppets:

    The funny thing is, if you take that boundary literally you would be able to any of the shops/cinema/bowling complex without being off site 😂
  • Do you know the worst of it - this is not relevant to my case but Bentley Bridge Leisure Park and Bentley Bridge Retail Park are side to side car parks, if you walk from the shops to the cinema/vise versa they will have you for walking off site. Just filthy scammers.
  • Do you know the worst of it - this is not relevant to my case but Bentley Bridge Leisure Park and Bentley Bridge Retail Park are side to side car parks, if you walk from the shops to the cinema/vise versa they will have you for walking off site. Just filthy scammers.
    Here’s my (bad) outline of the 2 ‘separate’ car parks…
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.7K Life & Family
  • 259.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.