UKCPM PCN - operator pix - Trinity Park, Birmingham

[ericsbrother]

Now you have a choice as to how to deal with this, you owe them nothing because it isnt a cvar park, there are no signs and you were there less than the 10 minutes grace period even the bandits of the IPC have to adhere to so they have wasted their money getting your keeper details.

 

The IPC will, however support its member regardless of anythingn they do to break the law or the CoP that the IPC themselves drew up because if they didnt then there is no point joining the IPC in the first place.

 

You can appeal and lose that appeal because ther IAS will insist you prove that you werent there for 10 minutes despite the picture luiterally being a snapshot and they will also say that the signs are available tyo read if you had bothered to drive a bit further and find then even though thye dont apply to the roadway and the intention of the yellow lines is to prohibit parking, not invite you to do so.

 

Or you can let them waste their time and money chasing you and only respond to Will and John at Gladstones Solicitors (IPC owners) threatograms rather than to any of the bog paper you will receive in the interim.

[ericsbrother]

ypu write anything adn they will say your appeal has been rejected and they wil think that you are averse to a long battle over this and will want to settle up if they just push you a little harder.

 

By not responding they have to pay money to chase you and wont know what you are thinking until they have spent enough to amke it unviable to try their luck with a court hearing.

 

Often that menas thej making a court claim and then bottling out when they see you have a defence.

 

use the time to do your homework, gather evidence in the way of pictures, maps, newspaper reports, planning applications and consents etc so you dont ahve to do it all in a hurry later when the actual signs and paintwork my well have changed.

 

As for being there more than 10 minutes, if they have piccies of your car even in slightly ifferent locatiosn then that willmake them look like incompetent liars if they try and use that at court.

 

However, do not mislead us by omitting details that are important for the type of advice we give as that will be based on the facts presented and you could end up trashing all of your other evidence because your honesty is open to question.

 

If you were there ofr 10 minutes or so then that is fine, if you were there for half an hour then say so, it doesnt chaneg the lack of contract but it does take ther CoP of the IPC out of the equation

[ericsbrother]

you get your evidence gathered and use that to rebut what they come up with.

 

If they have a wodge of pictures they havent made available with the NTK then the POFA says they arent admissible.

that wont stop them trying but we can pick holes in that when the time comes if it does indeed get that far.

 

In the meanwhile piccies of where you were parked,

the entrance to that private road from the public highway,

the entrance to the car park further on etc all needed so we can get a better picture of what is there overall.

 

If the signage is deficient then you win regardless of the interpretation of the words on the signs but we are going for hammering them for more than that

[ericsbrother]

Yes and no.

I would get decent images of the signs as they cant be read properly on goggleyes anyway. you wont need them for a good while as it will take  a year for this to reach a stage where they become vital but bear in mind that thigs change so your own images that are penecontemporaneous ( that means at about the same time but has more letters) with the parking event will be likely to be needed in the ling run so the sooner you get them the better.

If you know someone who lives that way ask them to do the necessaries and email the piccies to you

 

If it ever gets to a court claim you want to be able to chuck the kitchen sink at it.

[ericsbrother]

now a thing that leaps out at me is the DYL's all along the road.

 

can you find out where the public highway ends and their paint job takes over?

You may need to ask the council about any Traffic Order in place either there or nearby.

 

Spy cars are a no-no according to ATA CoP's so that is interesting

[ericsbrother]

a popint about what happens at court- if they are both held in the same court you can ask that they be looked at togetherto save the court's time and to ensure uniformity of the decision making. Great if you win but look at the Welsh hospital case where the judge made some seriously strange rumblings and odd decisions.

[ericsbrother]

trace legal dept? dont make me laugh.

i use to walk past the offices where they are based and there isnt enough room for a drinks machine let alone an entire department's stuff

 

As for them instructing a solicitor- they cant, they have no locus standi and if they did that they would lose any claim and the solicitor would be in trouble for failing in their duty to their client and the courts.

 

so, just a threatogram that is even more stupid than the usual ones

[ericsbrother]

so yellow paint has no meaning whatsoever as it isnt a public highway. therefore it cannot mean no parking or whatever as there is no order to create any authority to impose sanctions.

 

Now it will be argued by them that the dyls have a clear common meaning when slapped anywhere but that has been disagreed with by judges before. consider what a court would say if the parking co used cars with flashing blue lights, they would be chucked in the chokey for impersonating police officers.

 

The  debate around the POFA made it clear to parking co's that they must not give the impression that their invoices were official PENALTY charge notices but they still use the same sort of plastic wrapper, call them PCN's for short etc and then cry foul when someone point this out in a court. they usually get their way regarding wording of tickets but only because people are not pressing this point hard enough ( usually becasue the court claims are rubbish anyway so of little importance overall)

[ericsbrother]

so just follow the advice given in the other threads and if they are stupid enough to threaten court action you respond to that but nothing before that.

 

The barriers might have been removed due to a loack of planning permission so chack with the council. If they know nothing about any of it then enquiries to the land agnets/management co would be in order.

[ericsbrother]

The IAS will always dismiss appeals, Bryn Holloway invents the law when exisiting law goes against IPC members.

[ericsbrother]

the adjudicators decision is not binding on you, it is to stop the greedy muppets losing their livlihoods when they take legal action  in matters where they  are clearly in the wrong. The IPC/IAS wont earn any money if all of the members are in prison or struck off Companies House, the ICO data handlers list, DVLA access etc

[ericsbrother]

bear it in mind but dont rely on it entirely to beat them off with your case.

[ericsbrother]

when they have got as far as sending you a letter before action then you need to respond.

 

The cancelled demand was because they didnt want to cross swords with a police officer rather than an admission they are in the wrong so dont use it before a court claim.

 

You will find they defend that by saying the car in question wasnt working that evening and their operative had lent it to a friend who just happened to wear the same clothes as well but their bloke just happened to be passing with his camera so though he would do a bit of atmospheric photography and just happend to show the results to his boss...

 

[ericsbrother]

Dear sirs,

 you ask why I havent paid the amount demanded. That is simple to answer, there is no debt because there was no contract to breach.

 

If your clients are as stupid as Simple Simon at VCS then you should warn them that the 2 idiots who run the IPC are misleading their members over what is and isnt a parking contract when they claim they personally approve every sign and they will suffer the same fate at court when they learn that particular lesson.

 

Perhaps you should also ask Will and John at the IPC to give Will and John at Gladstones a copy of their ATA code of Practice so you can see where the clients actions prior to this demand falls well short of the code your client is supposed to abide by.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence from now on but I'm sure that you will be able to get another £50 out of the gullible if you dont tell them I have responded to your LBC.

 

Its the way I tell 'em

[ericsbrother]

There is no guarantee they will drop the matter but it shows them that you are up for a fight and producing your response to their claim wont get them the sympathy vote at court as most juristictiosn are well aware of their behaviour by now.

 

The aim of this is to make the parking co think hard about their relationship with Gladstones as it is them who seem to push this rather than the parking co and anecdotal evidence has it they offer special terms to the parking co for using them to sue a punter.

 

When they have lost the client a few cases and they are still billed for the less than stunning work the parking co's then get hacked off with the misselling and try other comapnies like BWL instead (who are just as dire).

[ericsbrother]

I have a biro and a scanner/copier. As long as you have a record of this you cn produce later the method of production is unimportant

[ericsbrother]

but add that the Civil procedure rules dictate that the letter was deemed served 2 days after you posted it so in law they did receive it. Ask if it might have been left on the 12th green

 

in short, dont take their crap and give them some back. They know that this is as dodgy as hell becasue even their bought and paid for adjudicator found against their client so they know that they wont get a payday but are hoping you dont know how to use the interweb

Edited March 26, 2020 by ericsbrother

[ericsbrother]

I would send the original letter and dont try and justify anything about post, deemed service etc as it will justcreate more trouble than it is worth.

showing you are relaxed about the whole thing may cause them to put a stop loss on thie.

To help with that send a copy to the client, UKCPM so they know that whatever Will and John tell them there is no such thing as an easy killa nd their solicitors may have just ceated more trouble than they have solved

[ericsbrother]

do not add anything, just copy the letter to the parking co as they are the client and amke the decisions on their interpretation of contracts and whetehr they want to chuck money at this.

What you say may well invite them to continue rather than put up with an attempt at belittling Currently you target is clear, dont blur things.

 

[ericsbrother]

They will be hoping that you might cough up and both they and gladdys then earn a dishonest crust from this.

They arent going to admit being villains but they may well decide to quietly drop the matter after all as they have now been forwarned that they will have to spend more money on this with no certainty of getting it back.

 

It is the private parking co overall model that is the problem and none of them wouldn make a bean if they were honest and just.

[ericsbrother]

the poor dears, they are starving so ahve decided to give you another opportunity to fall for their taradiddles.

Not a LBA and I bet that their client has now wasted more on this than they can ever hope to recover.

The 3rd piccie is evidence they are obliged to produce at the outset so this kills any claim that would be brought using the POFA and there is a clause there about creating any liability rather than a keeper liability. They are hoping you suddenly have cold feet over this and do something to save them the embarrasment of having to lose more of their clients money.

[ericsbrother]

you keep the letter and if they are stupid enough to sue you it gets wheeled out but has little weight in itself