Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • markudman
    • By markudman 8th Jan 18, 9:44 PM
    • 304Posts
    • 182Thanks
    markudman
    Resident Parking
    • #1
    • 8th Jan 18, 9:44 PM
    Resident Parking 8th Jan 18 at 9:44 PM
    Hi I have found the bottle to start a thread, I have read the Newbie’s Thread and followed some of the advice,
    Here is my story, I moved into a new flat with my wife and kids, in Sept 2017, the parking cowboys, PCM mismanage the parking, I am off work sick due to an autoimmune disease which means I have problems with pain all over my body so cannot always help my wife with, Kids Shopping, etc.

    I had 3 cars, (sold one now) but got about 8 tickets, for different reasons, but all the usual reasons, PCM would not issue permits until they got the V5 in my address, this took a few weeks, we asked for temp permit which after a fight with the managing agent got them, also we got scratch cards and displayed them in the cars, but still got tickets,
    there are 3 entrances to the estate, only one (the back one) has signs on them .
    I have talked to the landlord and are not interested in helping, but have not spoke to them yet about quite enjoyment.

    So after reading lots of forums, decided to play a game with them, I appealed knowing that they would get rejected, I then used different letters and appeals to IPS, I am waiting for their rejections.

    The main reason for appeal was signage or lack of it, they say they have 63 signs throughout the estate, (it’s a big estate) which may or maybe not be true, but there are no signs on 2 of the entrances and have photos to prove, a total of about 20 photos showing the entrance and a walk through to the parking etc,
    a few signs can be seen, one which is about 20 foot away from the parking area, over a grassed area which cannot be read from the parking area, and one which is next to one saying resident parking only, so confusing.

    I have checked the size of the signs and they are not bigger that 0.3 sqm so no advertising consent needed, I am checking planning soon.

    I have 2 NTK from them, for the same car, one to the hirer, and one to the keeper? Both say they got the details from DVLA, and my wife is a Mr, but the V5 is Mrs,

    I have asked them for proof that they have a contact with the land owner.

    On their Prima Facie Case they say that they have a contact with Merton Council since 2009, the land was sold to a housing association in 2010? I have checked this with land registry and downloaded the plan.

    The other point which I am hoping will be a winner if all else fails, (I have not gone along this line yet with the appeals) is my tenant’s agreement, it has no referents to parking in it, but says:
    Common Parts,
    Means any part of the building containing the property and any land or premises which the tenant is entitled under the terms of this tenancy to use in common with the landlord and other owners or occupiers of other flats in the building.
    As in:
    In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

    In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
    Last edited by markudman; 08-01-2018 at 9:50 PM.
Page 2
    • markudman
    • By markudman 14th Jan 18, 8:14 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Have you supplied your lease agreement that shows you have a right to park, and that there is no clause allowing the managing agent to change that right?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes, do they look at the evidents? or just put there roboreplies
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Jan 18, 8:18 PM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,300 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I got to know Chris Grayling quite well during Brexit,
    I have spoke to him about the great GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM, he is going to look in to it. I also told him about the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19. lets see what happens
    Originally posted by markudman
    Don't hold your breath ?

    The worst MP who was supposed to be doing something
    is Marcus Jones MP, he was famous for his bulls*it letters and
    as it turned out was a complete timewaster.
    I would suggest that with Grayling, it's in one ear and out
    the other, just like the rest
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • markudman
    • By markudman 14th Jan 18, 8:20 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents.

    The key words here are "for the benefit of". There are hundredsnay thousands of examples on the internet that PPCs provide little to no benefit to the residents, quite the resverse in fact.

    I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.

    In nearly every case, there is no contract.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I am having fun reading there replies, As Coupon-mad said its court where I will win this. I'm looking forward (with the help of this forum) to my day in court
    • markudman
    • By markudman 14th Jan 18, 9:07 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Here is my reply to IPC, do I need to remove or add anything? The game is in full flow

    The operator does not have to justify the loss incurred. The amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed is justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

    THE BEAVIS CASE HAS ZERO TO DO WITH RESIDENTIAL PARKING
    IN JOPSON V HOMEGUARD [2016] B9GF0A9E IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT PARKINGEYE V BEAVIS [2015] UKSC 67 DOES NOT APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND THIS WILL THEREFORE BRING THE PENALTY DOCTRINE BACK IN PLAY. THE CHARGE WILL THEREFORE LIKELY BE A PENALTY AND UNFAIR CONSUMER CHARGE UNLESS IT IS FOUND THE CHARGE IS A PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS OR THERE IS COMMERCIAL JUSTIFICATION. THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT £85 WAS NOT A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS IN BEAVIS AS THERE WAS NO DIRECT LOSS TO THE PARKING COMPANY. SIMILARLY, IT WOULD BE HARD TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING RESIDENTS HUNDREDS OF POUNDS A YEAR TO PARK IN THEIR OWN PARKING SPACES.


    The charge arises out of a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signage. The point has been raised that the wording on the signage is forbidding. This is not accepted. The offer for the use of the land provides a contractual license to enter such land and parking is permitted for those parked wholly within the confines of the marked bays. The contract crystallises (i.e. the user accepts the terms of the licence) at the point they enter the land. The sign then confirms in clear terms when a charge for use of the land becomes due.
    IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS NO PRIMACY OF CONTRACT IT IS LIKELY THE CONTRACT WILL BE FORMED BY SIGNAGE ON SITE. THIS WILL NEED TO BE PLENTIFUL AND EASILY VISIBLE, OTHERWISE NO CONTRACT CAN BE ENTERED BY PERFORMANCE.
    IN LINK PARKING V MR L C9GF5875 [2016] IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRANCE SIGNAGE AT A RESIDENTIAL SITE AND THE OTHER SIGNAGE WAS NOT VISIBLE. THE CLAIM WAS DISMISSED.

    Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to park within the marked bays.

    I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents. It is contended that the implementation of parking enforcement falls under this. Also, clauses permitting parking are often restricted or altered by later provisions.
    IN PACE V MR N [2016] C7GF51J1, PACE CAME BACK AGAIN, THIS TIME CLAIMING THAT CLAUSE 6.3 OF THE LEASE ALLOWED THE TERMS OF THE LEASE TO BE VARIED. THE JUDGE RULES THAT THIS CLAUSE REQUIRED A MONTH'S NOTICE TO BE GIVEN, AND AS THIS HAD NOT OCCURRED, THE POINT WAS MOOT. THE CLAIM, AND 7 OTHERS RELYING ON THIS, WAS DISMISSED.

    IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE OPERATOR TO SIMPLY POINT TO A CLAUSE WHICH ALLOWS THE LEASE TO BE VARIED. THEY MUST PROVE THAT THE LEASE WAS SO VARIED, AND FURTHERMORE VARIED BY THE LESSOR. THE OPERATOR ISN’T A PARTY TO THE LEASE AND CANNOT VARY IT.

    FURTHERMORE, A CLAUSE OSTENSIBLY PERMITTING VARIATIONS DOES NOT GIVE CARTE BLANCHE TO INTRODUCE ANY TERMS AT WHIM. SUCH VARIATION CLAUSES ARE NORMALLY COUCHED IN TERMS STATING THAT VARIATIONS CAN BE MADE FOR THE GOOD MANAGEMENT OF THE SITE, OR SIMILAR. SO, IF A VARIATION CAN BE SHOWN TO BE TO THE SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT OF THE LESSEES, IT SHOULD BE CHALLENGED. A VARIATION MIGHT ALSO CONFLICT WITH OTHER TERMS OF THE LEASE E.G. THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT. IF SO THEN, AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE CHALLENGED.

    I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.
    IN LINK PARKING V MR L C9GF5875 [2016] IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRANCE SIGNAGE AT A RESIDENTIAL SITE AND THE OTHER SIGNAGE WAS NOT VISIBLE. THE CLAIM WAS DISMISSED.
    IN NEARLY EVERY CASE, THERE IS NO CONTRACT.

    IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT YOU STILL HAVE NOT:
    SHOWN WHO IS THE PARTY THAT CONTRACTED WITH YOUR COMPANY AND ARE THEY THE LANDOWNER?
    WHAT IS COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION?
    THERE IS NO CONSENSUS DEFINITION OF “COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION.” THE TERM IS NOT IN THE AUTHORITATIVE LEGAL DICTIONARY, NOR WERE WE ABLE TO FIND A SETTLED DEFINITION IN OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS. IT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE ANY INFORMATION THAT HAS ECONOMIC VALUE OR COULD CAUSE ECONOMIC HARM IF KNOWN. WHAT CONSTITUTES “COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION” VARIES IN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES AND IN MARKETS WITHIN THOSE INDUSTRIES. IT IS OFTEN DEFINED IN REFERENCE TO TRADE SECRETS, WHICH DO HAVE A SET DEFINITION, A TRADE SECRET MAY CONSIST OF ANY FORMULA, PATTERN, DEVICE, OR COMPILATION OF INFORMATION WHICH IS USED IN ONE’S BUSINESS, AND WHICH GIVES [THE HOLDER] AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE OVER COMPETITORS WHO DO NOT KNOW OR USE IT.”
    PLEASE NOTE THE DOCUMENT I ASKED FOR DOES NOT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY.

    PROVIDED PHOTOS OF THE SIGNS THAT YOU SAY WERE ON SITE, WHICH YOU CONTEND FORMED A CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER. ESPECIALLY THE ONES ON THE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ON HAYWARD CLOSE

    PROVIDED PROOF THAT THE TIMING OF ANY CAMERA OR TIMER USED WAS SYNCHRONISED WITH ALL OTHER CAMERAS AND/OR SYSTEMS & MACHINES.
    Last edited by markudman; 15-01-2018 at 1:07 PM.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 15th Jan 18, 1:51 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Copy of contact
    Last edited by markudman; 22-01-2018 at 5:00 PM. Reason: Showing Name
    • markudman
    • By markudman 20th Jan 18, 7:25 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Just to keep this alive, I did 2 IPC appeals (one before finding this great forum)
    That first one has been dismissed, surprise surprise, the second one was much more detailed and professional but still expect it to be dismissed, the game continues, am waiting for PCM’s next move.
    Again thanks to everyone, and to you, that have just got a ticket or having problems with a PPC, do not panic, this is long game, and a game of wits, but this forum and all its great helpers will get you through it, Don’t panic and don’t pay it, the only way to stop these parasites is not to pay them.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 20th Jan 18, 7:42 PM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,300 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Just to keep this alive, I did 2 IPC appeals (one before finding this great forum)
    That first one has been dismissed, surprise surprise, the second one was much more detailed and professional but still expect it to be dismissed, the game continues, am waiting for PCM’s next move.
    Again thanks to everyone, and to you, that have just got a ticket or having problems with a PPC, do not panic, this is long game, and a game of wits, but this forum and all its great helpers will get you through it, Don’t panic and don’t pay it, the only way to stop these parasites is not to pay them.
    Originally posted by markudman
    Yes Mark. no doubt the second will be dismissed
    which will be no surprise as its the .....
    GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM

    It's not too late to tell Sir Greg Knight who
    is heading the new private members bill
    re: parking cowboys

    Sir Greg Knight who is still
    accepting comments, everyone should email him

    sothcottt@parliament.uk

    And you tell the Which Magazine about
    this government approved scam
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • markudman
    • By markudman 20th Jan 18, 9:29 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Yes Mark. no doubt the second will be dismissed
    which will be no surprise as its the .....
    GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM

    It's not too late to tell Sir Greg Knight who
    is heading the new private members bill
    re: parking cowboys

    Sir Greg Knight who is still
    accepting comments, everyone should email him

    sothcottt@parliament.uk

    And you tell the Which Magazine about
    this government approved scam
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    A quote from Parking Prankster
    what can be done about cowboys like these and the Private parking companies, why can it not be regulated?

    Has the Parking Industry contributed to this problem?

    Undoubtably. The British Motorists Protection Association keeps a tally of the number of parking hearings. Although it is not informed about all of them, there have been at least 6,828 of them (not including set-asides and re-hearings) this year. On this basis, parking companies file about 48,000 claims a year.

    Parking hearings also contribute just over 2% to the total number of hearings.

    Of these, well over half are filed by Gladstones Solicitors, who are owned by Will Hurley and John Davies. These are the same people who run the International Parking Community, a trade association who give members access to the DVLA keeper database. The IPC also run an appeals service which is well known for being run in an unfair manner with a clear bias against motorists





    Will Hurley and John Davies have therefore set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, with a nice little conveyor belt going.

    They set up a trade association apparently designed to attract the rogues and bottom feeders of the industry. They dismiss motorists appeals on bogus grounds not in line with decisions made by the real courts. They then feed the charges through from the IPC to Gladstones, funding the costs themselves, but adding an estimated £125 per claim for their own pockets (£50 debt collection charge, £50 filing fee, £25 court fee).

    Even though Gladstones have proven themselves to be totally incompetent in court, their approximately 4,000 hearings can be viewed as something of a loss leader. It is the 28,000 cases which never get to court which are the true business model of Gladstones, who are creaming in an estimated £3.5 million from a largely automated process requiring no effort or thought.

    It is interesting that a pair of scoundrels can make themselves rich through a business model which disregards the fact that they are hopeless in court, (as often reported), but instead relies on bullying and intimidation to make motorists pay charges which based on Gladstones record, they would not be liable for if the case went to a hearing
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 20th Jan 18, 11:37 PM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,300 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Sums up Laurel and Hardy in a nutshell

    All we can do is keep shouting SCAM to
    government

    We all wait with baited breath to see if
    Sir Greg Knight and the MP's such as
    Jacob William Rees-Mogg MP actually do
    something positive.

    The last MP ... Marcus Jones, DCLG who
    gave a false impression and lied was the biggest
    timewaster ever.
    That is probably why Theresa May promoted
    him in the shuffle as she's probably in her comfort
    zone when surrounded by idiots

    It's no wonder more and more people think
    that someone, somewhere is making hay
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 10:11 AM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    I want to write to my landlord and ask for the contract between themselves and PCM, as PCM have failed to supply it, on the forum it said ask the landlord under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, I have looked this up

    The term major works, or “qualifying works” which is the term used in the Act, means works (whether on a building or any other premises) the cost of which is recoverable from the tenant under the terms of the lease through the service charge.

    is this the right way to go about this?
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 2:37 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    How could they possibly dismiss this appeal,

    It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

    For the avoidance of doubt the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued as the vehicle was parked outside a marked bay, in breach of the terms clearly displayed on signage visible from the position of parking. From the images provided by the Operator it is clear that the driver parked outside a marked bay. As the vehicle was parked outside a bay, in breach of the displayed terms, I am satisfied that the Operator has proved their prima facie case.

    While noting the Appellant's comments, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was parked in an area managed by the Operator. The signage at the site makes it clear that the land in question is private and that all drivers must park in marked bays at all times. The Operator’s signage, which is clearly visible throughout the site, makes it clear that these regulations are in force at all times and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued to vehicles that fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. By parking outside a marked bay the Appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of parking.

    I am satisfied that the vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied whilst being parked outside a marked bay and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. I have been provided with examples of signage stating the terms and conditions of parking which exist at the site. This signage is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that these terms are complied with. Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require the driver to park in a bay, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If the driver cannot park within a bay they can either park elsewhere, or park outside a bay and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant did not park within a marked bay and therefore agreed to pay the charge.

    Whilst having sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

    For the reasons explained above, the appeal must be dismissed.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 2:39 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Can I write to them asking to hurry up with court papers,
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd Jan 18, 2:55 PM
    • 37,791 Posts
    • 84,847 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.
    Originally posted by markudman
    I suggest you write to the IAS and ask for the name of the adjudicator in question (I'm assuming the name wasn't given when the appeal was rejected.)

    Quote the relevant part of the Alternative Dispute Regulations 2015 that states they must supply this on a durable medium.

    You want this to verify that they are in fact a registered barrista barrister or solicitor with the SRA.

    ADR directive -

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

    SCHEDULE 3 Regulation 9(4)
    Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets ...

    Transparency

    5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—
    (a) its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;
    (b) a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;
    (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;

    Last edited by Fruitcake; 22-01-2018 at 2:59 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 3:57 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    I suggest you write to the IAS and ask for the name of the adjudicator in question (I'm assuming the name wasn't given when the appeal was rejected.)

    Quote the relevant part of the Alternative Dispute Regulations 2015 that states they must supply this on a durable medium.

    You want this to verify that they are in fact a registered barrista barrister or solicitor with the SRA.

    ADR directive -

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

    SCHEDULE 3 Regulation 9(4)
    Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets ...

    Transparency

    5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—
    (a) its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;
    (b) a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;
    (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;

    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Will they just lie?
    And maybe you are right it was the tea boy that sent it
    Last edited by markudman; 22-01-2018 at 4:08 PM.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 4:00 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    In the link below is the NTK, The NTK does not really comply with POFA . Am I Right?

    It states that you are required to pay or name the driver. The word should be invite. 8 (2) (e) There is no required in at all.

    8 (2) starts with the word "must"
    Paragraph 8 (2) (f) has not been given in the form required in POFA
    There is no period of parking stated 8 (2) (a)
    There is no creditor identified 8 (2) (h)

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gw9nlk29t5exkrd/IMG_20180122_0005.jpg?dl=0
    Last edited by markudman; 22-01-2018 at 5:18 PM.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd Jan 18, 4:16 PM
    • 37,791 Posts
    • 84,847 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    That weblink shows your full name as the album owner.

    You are correct about the other bit. The POFA does not say the word "required" so they are misleading the keeper by saying so, and (in my opinion) deliberately misrepresenting what the POFA 2012 says.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 22-01-2018 at 9:40 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd Jan 18, 4:24 PM
    • 37,791 Posts
    • 84,847 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Will they just lie?
    And maybe you are right it was the tea boy that sent it
    Originally posted by markudman

    I would still ask them. It is your right to ask and they must comply.

    If they don't reply, or refuse to name the adjudicator, you tell the judge (and the DVLA) that they have breached an act of parliament.

    If they reply and the named person isn't legally trained, you also tell that to the judge and DVLA.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 4:50 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    Thanks FC I have removed the link for now will work on it or put on dropbox,
    I am not sure how to put this letter together, without looking like an idiot, can ypu please read it and advise,
    Many thanks
    Mark

    To whom it may concern,
    My Appeal Ref:
    Issued on by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd
    to vehicle registration
    Originally rejected by operator on 2018
    The adjudicator made their decision on 2018
    I would like to verify that the adjudicator is in fact a registered barrister or solicitor with the SRA.
    Under ADR directive - SCHEDULE 3 Regulation 9(4)
    Please can you supply the details of this person.

    Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets ...

    Transparency

    5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—
    (a) its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;
    (b) a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;
    (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;

    Please see this link for further details of the ADR Directive
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 5:40 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    “A postal PCN or NTK might be headed up 'Notice to Keeper' or 'Reminder' or 'Charge Notice' or it may even be a random letter from a debt collector - it is still your Notice to Keeper, in effect, if it is the first letter to arrive.”

    Just to clarify,

    On one ticket I got I appealed, right away, I got a letter of rejection, but never got a NTK, should I take the rejection letter as NTK? The ticket is from PCM, an IPC member
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
    • markudman
    • By markudman 22nd Jan 18, 8:39 PM
    • 304 Posts
    • 182 Thanks
    markudman
    The IPC
    PO Box 662
    Macclesfield
    SK10 9NR

    Dear Sir or Madam

    Subject access request

    Please supply the information which I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to the following information:
    (a) All information you hold under my name and/or address and/or any other personal data and/or parameters;
    (b) All information you hold under my vehicles registrations
    (c) All other information you hold about me, including information from or to third parties;
    (d) A copy of IPC’s audit of . Inc a copy of the landowner’s authority

    “This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process”.

    If you need more information from me, please let me know as soon as possible. I attach a cheque for £10.00 covering the maximum cost under the Data Protection Act 1998. Should you not levy a fee for SARs or only a lesser amount I would request you return any surplus amounts when supplying this information.

    It may be helpful for you to know that a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 should be responded to within 40 days. If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer.

    If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at www.ico.gov.uk
    Yours faithfully
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

435Posts Today

5,574Users online

Martin's Twitter