Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ArenJool

Pages: [1]
1
Thanks for your response.

The photo of the sign you have showed us does not appear to be a sign belonging to CPM. How the car park area is delineated could be important.
One possibility I can think of, is that the car park is for residents of the block it is adjacent to, but only if they register their details with Westminster City Council (given the "vehicle not registered" comment on the PCN). The bays do not seem to be allocated to individual flats and are all unmarked except for the one disabled bay stating for "LL14".


The GSV views are too old to be of any value. We would need to see the current signage, preferably under the same lighting conditions at the time of the alleged contravention.
I agree the GSV views are 3 years old but I promise that it accurately reflects what is shown today. I can't get any photos of that area until mid June.

For any contract to have been made, there must have been an entrance sign that clearly informs the driver that they are entering private land and that parking terms and conditions apply. Once on the land, there must be sufficient signs that adequately bring to the attention of the driver what the terms of parking are.
The only sign mentioned on entrance is the one provided in the opening post, and matches the GSV views.

Did you park in a bay marked as for the use of people with a disability? If so, there should be a sign with all the parking terms and conditions that can be read by the driver without having to leave the vehicle. Is that the case?

The car was stopped, while still occupied, in an unmarked bay for 10 minutes. Not in a bay marked as for the use of people with a disability. I'm unsure if the agreed definition for what a "parked" car includes whether or not the car is occupied, and if there is any time limit, and if the car must be locked or not.

2
Any advice please?

Thanks in advance.

3
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant as there is no evidence that the any contract could have been formed. There is a minimum consideration period required for the driver to seek out, read and understand the terms and conditions and to decide whether to remain or leave.

Four minutes is below the minimum consideration period and therefore there is no evidence that the driver entered into any contract before deciding to leave the location. It is irrelevant whether the vehicle was stopped in a disabled bay or not.

Additionally, the operator is obliged to comply with the the PPSCoP and the evidence shows that the single sign, high up on a post in tiny font does not comply with section 4.1 which states:

"4.1. The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises."

That single sign does not fulfil that requirement.

However, you are dealing with an IPC operator so no appeal or subsequent IAS appeal will be successful and the only way you are going beat this is to ignore all debt recovery threats and wait for them to send you a Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequent N1SDT Claim Form, whereto defend it using a template defence we provide and eventually it is discontinued.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.

I will post back if/when I get LoC.

4
Hello.

I hope you're all well.

I am the registered keeper. I have just noticed this PCN. I have not been on top of my mail as I am juggling a few court cases fighting false allegations.

The driver and two disabled passengers drove into this parking area. One of them left the car to the coop store to ask what the conditions of parking were. The car was never vacant. After 6 minutes, the car left the area because the driver did not agree to the conditions.


Google maps link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/smww9At9a5BpfPWP6

Can this be successfully fought please?

Thanks.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

5
Hello.

I hope you're all well.

I am the registered keeper. I have just noticed this PCN. I have not been on top of my mail as I am juggling a few court cases fighting false allegations. When I try to log on to appeal, it states that the case has been moved to their legal team.

The driver and passenger drove into this parking area. one of them left the car to check to see if the Westminster white disabled badge was valid in this car park. The car was never vacant. 10 minutes of searching did not get a solid answer so the car left the area.

The only signs inside only state "OVS permit holders only". It is not clear that this area is one of the exclusions mentioned of the white badge page (It is not clear that this is a WCC estate): https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/where-you-can-park-disabled-badge

Google maps link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1aPdZ5FexUQowPFQ6

Can this be successfully fought please?

Thanks.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1]