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
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 13th Jul 14, 4:27 PM
    • 226Posts
    • 234Thanks
    Daniel san
    New parking regulations at home...
    • #1
    • 13th Jul 14, 4:27 PM
    New parking regulations at home... 13th Jul 14 at 4:27 PM
    Hi all, I've been reading through threads for a few days now, including the "newbies" and guides - all great info and very much appreciated.

    I'm always very careful to check notices when out and about and parking up, so have avoided any charges so far, but something happened a few weeks ago which has annoyed me, although I must stress it only comes into force next week, I'm looking for a bit of specific guidance if you would be so kind please

    From posts I've read, I gather the following info will help you to help me.
    I am in England
    I am over 18
    The vehicle is not a lease car

    I live in an apartment block, with a leasehold purchase, and have done so since it was newly built in 2007. I am allocated a single parking bay as part of my lease. Until these notices were put in place recently, there has been no parking enforcement in place in any way, just a gate to the car park, opened by a remote fob. This new parking situation has been initiated by the managing agents for the apartments, but not something I've been asked to agree to.

    A few weeks ago, I came home to find the following notice on display in various locations around the car park (edit: oh, I can't post an image as I'm a new member )


    I've read on here that I should ignore any screen ticket, wait 28 days, I should get a NTK within 56 days.

    My question really is, given the above information on my specific scenario, does any of the advice I have read on here change, should I happen get a ticket on my windscreen please?

    I really don't want this round sticker on my windscreen....I'm happy the tax disc is finally going bye bye in October, but now I'll have to have this NCS Parking sticker/advert on my car instead anyway!

    I thank you for your time and help in advance.

    Regards
    Dan
Page 18
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Apr 18, 5:10 PM
    • 37,403 Posts
    • 84,289 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    You need to tidy up the !!!8221 rubbish that keeps infecting many posts at the moment.

    Have you explained what KADOE stands for? I can't see the explanation in the counter claim.

    The same applies to the IAS.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 13-04-2018 at 5:33 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
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 13th Apr 18, 5:23 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    That must be the result of copy / pasting, as it isn't present in the Word document in front of me.

    I haven't, and you are right, I should, and I will. Thank you.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 5:51 PM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,270 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    27.1 - how is this not relevant land?

    Personally this is too long, needs to be more concise. Defences over a page for something relatively simple shouldn't run this long.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Apr 18, 6:20 PM
    • 19,490 Posts
    • 30,837 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Very fast skim read while waiting for Mrs U to vacate the supermarket - there's some flip-flopping between 'the Defendant' and 'I', which I believe not only should be consistent but should be 'the Defendant' rather than anything in the first person.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 15th Apr 18, 10:52 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    27.1 - how is this not relevant land?

    Personally this is too long, needs to be more concise. Defences over a page for something relatively simple shouldn't run this long.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    This is in BOLD on my screen, to remind me to look into it more before including/removing. That section is copy/pasted from Henry Hippo's thread on Pepipoo, as Coupon Mad suggested. I do need to check that and understand if it's correct for me, or remove it. Thank you.

    Regarding the length, it's a defence and counterclaim, and I would rather it be long and include everything relevant, than miss something out. If you or anyone has suggestions as to which parts can be removed whilst still retaining the important parts, that would be great, thank you.
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 15th Apr 18, 10:53 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Very fast skim read while waiting for Mrs U to vacate the supermarket - there's some flip-flopping between 'the Defendant' and 'I', which I believe not only should be consistent but should be 'the Defendant' rather than anything in the first person.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    100% agreed. I've gone through it and changed those and will double check it again before it's filed. Thank you.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 1:10 AM
    • 61,745 Posts
    • 74,643 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That section is copy/pasted from Henry Hippo's thread on Pepipoo, as Coupon Mad suggested. I do need to check that and understand if it's correct for me, or remove it.
    You need to adapt it to suit your case, remove any 'not relevant land' argument.

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 14th May 18, 10:33 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Quick update. Court has acknowledged my defence and counterclaim and I've paid the fee. I have the directions questionnaire. The case has been moved to my local court. Having read the newbies post, I'm now expecting Gladstones to request the "papers hearing" route.

    I'll update at the next stage.
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 21st May 18, 10:01 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Update FYI: Received Gladstones defence to counterclaim. Any comments etc appreciated.

    Page 1
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntcui1c65dq32tw/GLADSTONE-DEFENCE-COUNTERCLAIM-1-redacted.jpg?dl=0

    Page 2
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ra839wsufp4dqrt/GLADSTONE-DEFENCE-COUNTERCLAIM-2-redacted.jpg?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st May 18, 10:21 PM
    • 61,745 Posts
    • 74,643 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Usual rubbish. Henry Hippo got the same sort of response. They have to defend a counter claim but IMHO that's very weak indeed.

    They've even argued that a VRN is not personal data, despite the fact that the ICO has found as fact that it is.

    And this is not a personal injury claim! Consumers can certainly claim for distress under the DPA or the Protection from Harassment Act or the Equality Act or even the Consumer Rights Act and Judges have upheld such claims already in the small claims track.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 21st May 18, 10:46 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Thanks for the reply CM. I read it and thought it was a pile of pish too! Especially coming from a solicitors....just wow!

    I particularly liked, I mean laughed, at the bit where they suggested my vehicle was or could have been parked outside of my bay in regards my counterclaim. 1 minute on their clients website for any of those 7 PCN's would reveal their clients photographic "evidence" actually supports my claim by showing clearly my vehicle in my own bay - I've saved the images, of course
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st May 18, 10:55 PM
    • 9,298 Posts
    • 9,577 Thanks
    KeithP
    6)iii) they've even got Claimant and Defendant mixed up.

    Are you sure they're solicitors?
    .
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 21st May 18, 11:10 PM
    • 226 Posts
    • 234 Thanks
    Daniel san
    haha yes, they have! I think some paperwork may have been included in a packet of Cornflakes at some point in the past.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 22nd May 18, 8:07 AM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,235 Thanks
    Johnersh
    It's a delightful part 20 defence
    In fact, I would go so far as to rely on it (in addition to the photos) to demonstrate the original claim is unreasonably advanced.

    The solicitors for the claimant/part20 defendant are clearly unwilling or unable to sign a statement of truth stating that the car was parked outside of a marked bay. A DJ may find that interesting....
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd May 18, 9:01 AM
    • 37,403 Posts
    • 84,289 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I had difficulty reading that as after about ten seconds I kept getting shown "prove you are not a robot" images for some reason.

    Since they have used the term, "without prejudice" are they actually going to be able to use that statement in court?

    What a load of cobblers. Proof that a VRN is personal data from ICO statements etcetera should of course be provided.

    They state they have a contract to mismanage parking then ask you to prove otherwise? Er, no, it's the other way round. They need to show a contract that says they can ticket you and take you to court for parking in your own space.

    The comment that your car may not have been parked in your own space is laughable when all their images show otherwise. As above, the images contradict that statement, therefore it is a statement of lies.
    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
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 22nd May 18, 9:03 AM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,270 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    part 20? A reference I'm missing there Jonhersh!

    Given it isnt signed under a statement of truth, does that not mean it is an invalid defence to counterclaim? I htought defences of claims OR counterclaims had to be so signed?
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 22nd May 18, 9:08 AM
    • 8,991 Posts
    • 13,862 Thanks
    trisontana
    What we have here is an illustration of Gladstones well out of their comfort zone. They are OK just issuing robo-claims, but when they have to deal with a proper legal argument they are just rubbish. I should be ashamed to call myself a solicitor writing that nonsense.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 22nd May 18, 9:50 AM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,235 Thanks
    Johnersh
    The defence to the counterclaim is signed and verified with a statement of truth on behalf of the claimant. The lawyers name is redacted. In short: This means the claimant/part 20 defendant (company) has checked and approved a document (prepared by Gladstones on their instructions) which appears to state very clearly that the defendant/part 20 claimant may in fact have been parked in his bay after all.

    part 20? A reference I'm missing there
    My references were to part 20 CPR, which is the court rules relating to counterclaims.

    6)iii) they've even got Claimant and Defendant mixed up.
    Strictly speaking, no. They are now both the claimant and a defendant to the counterclaim. Their failure is to make that clear as I have done in this post.
    Last edited by Johnersh; 22-05-2018 at 10:19 AM.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 22nd May 18, 10:27 AM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,270 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Fruitcake - I think the WP means that even if this is provided theyre not accepting that it disproves their point

    Theyve stated the tickets were issued for being parked outside of a marked bay, yet they demonstrably werent.
    I dont understand how stupid they are being here, or how stupid they believe the D to be...
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 22nd May 18, 7:05 PM
    • 10,560 Posts
    • 9,917 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Oh dear.

    Thread about a PPC parking ticket now on post #360 and we complain about Parking Eye court packs.
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

222Posts Today

1,333Users online

Martin's Twitter