It means the enforcement methodology is different - via magistrates' courts rather than as a civil debt. The good news is that there can be greater flexibility. The starting point must be to find out exactly what the contravention is described as on the ticket, the signage in the car park and in the parking order.

Can you confirm who these have been issued by and if they were issued by a local authority that they were issued using an "approved device" ie cctv.

Its not calling their bluff to ask for the traffic order. It's a legitimate request and you may have to go to the councils offices to view. You may find that it is non specific enough (if it exists) to give you a get out.

Personally I would argue that the PCN was not correctly served. Only part of the PCN was served. it does not matter if it was 5% or 95%. Part of a PCN is not a PCN.

I cannot see how this is in the public interest to pursue.

Out of interest, if they were, could they be liable for PCNs?

That there may be but does it not depend on the type of bay that is marked out and also should there not be a separate marking for the end of one bay and the beginning of another?

Any way you can get a decent picture of the road markings to show what is there at the point that the type of bay allegedly changes?

Where's the sign to say that to the left it is residents' only? I would appeal that the contravention did not occur based on inadequate signage.

I've posted some (brief) thoughts and pictures on the Blackheath Village Bus Lane on this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290885-Blackheath-Village-Bus-Lane

Following the interesting diversion on this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?139627-Bus-Lane-PCN I thought it may be helpful to post some pictures of the Blackheath Village Bus Lane. I intend to come back and edit with some thoughts for appeal but the key points I've spotted so far are: Is this one bus lane or two? - Appears to be two Absence of sign prior to taper. Absence of deflection arrows prior to start (at mini roundabout) Short taper Deflection arrow to left hand lane prior to zebra crossing No end of bus lane sign No deflection arrows prior to second bus lane No warning sign prior to start of second bus lane Taper too short Sorry about the "flare" on the pictures - wrong type of sun! Is this the camera?

Of course you can write. You can also sue them. Whether you will get anywhere is another matter

Sorry, there's a ton of differences between a banknote and a cheque.

I find the title of this thread ironic. OP admits to: being on a crusade; that car park owner is entitled to charge; has not paid the charges (save on the occasion described) and gives no indication of having pursued legitimate grievance avenues with employer. I think that there is a bit of a danger of the pot calling the kettle black here.

If this got to adjudication and rested on the payment methodology, I would find it hard to understand how an adjudicator could find that OP had not acted vexatiously in writing a number of cheques.

Are you sure it moved? For three inches could it have been a rock on suspension? Given what you were doing it would have, no doubt been alarming and unnerving to say the least. No idea about the gearbox or hand brake but best to get them checked. Personally I'd get the hoist checked as that may have received an over design load too. I guess if there is a bill you will be passing it to the other guy.

This is true if it is consistent with your common law duty to mitigate your loss. If you have a "high-end" car it is unlikely to be, so be careful here.

That would be a solution

Just beware that what Jamberson has no legal basis - ie it is not a prescribed methodology in the legislation. There is a risk that the LA will view it as a failure to respond in the prescribed way and issue a further charge certificate.

Ah, I misread and thought that the picture from the other poster was of the same sign. My mistake, sorry.

The picture in post no 10 does not seem to.

Under English Law, at present, your car can be lawfully clamped if it is shown that you have consented to the risk of it being clamped. Other stuff applies to but that's the basic position. You need to deny that you agreed to run the risk. IMHO you dilute that denial if you say that you agreed to run the risk in some circumstances but not those that supposedly led to your vehicle being clamped. Best to keep it simple at this stage IMHO. Deny consent in a letter to clamper and land owner in a LBA and if deadline for response passes issue proceedings against both. Detail comes later.

Include reference to the omission of the words from the sign. Personally I feel it may be a mistake to attack the CEOs.

Personally I wouldn't go where you are going - at least not for now. I would simply state that you did not agree to your car being clamped and no circumstances existed that entitled the clamping party to immobilise your vehicle. That's all you need to say for now.

Just so long as you know that will cost the owner twice as much!