Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Also, I went to look at the signs yesterday and have uploaded more images at https://imgur.com/a/dc6aOS3

The video cuts off just before the junction as I was concentrating on the sign more at that time but seems reasonable to me that a bus could obscure the red warning sign as it's within the stop and those signs are hard to see, considering what else is going on on that road.

Also some responses back over at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152286
2
Tusker got back to me (i asked them to re-send)
the contents of the authorisation was this



Parking Services Perth
and Kinross Council
35 Kinnoull Street
Perth
PH1 5GD
31/10/2023
To whom it may concern
THIRD PARTY AUTHORISATION LETTER
Please accept this letter as confirmation that Tusker authorise you to communicate directly with the nominated person
detailed below in relation to the Penalty Charge Notice they have received:
Vehicle Registration: RJ23FFX
Reference: PK65201252
Make/Model: 
Contract Start Date:
Contract End Date:
Customer Name:
Customer Address: 
 
The above vehicle is on long term lease with Tusker and the nominated person above has full use of the vehicle.
Kind Regards,
Contract Administration Supervisor
 


3
but it'd be DRP doing so.
Who still have no interest and can't do that.

What is DRP for then if they can't do anything?
4
Should I just pay the PCNs and try to get the housing association to reimburse me? This is a lot to deal with and if PCM are going to be litigious am I risking huge debts?
Absolutely not, they almost certainly won't and getting it cancelled is more likely than them reimbursing you!

IF it went to court and IF you lost it would cost the 100 each for the notices and about 120-130 on top, so no.

They aim to make it look like a lot to deal with as it makes you more likely to cave and pay, if you understand their mindset it puts you in a stronger position to fight it.
5
but it'd be DRP doing so.
Who still have no interest and can't do that.
7
That NOR is rubbish.  We usually advise: I rely upon my formal representations and will file full submissions upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.  Choose ground: procedural impropriety.

If you want representation, I am happy to do so.
8
For clarity, CST can't take legal action on behalf of DRP, DRP don't own the debt - they have no 'interest' (in the legal sense) in it, CST can only take legal action on behalf of Smart if they were to do anything.

This is all part of the standard 'half truths' threatograms they send.  Of course you would only have a relevant CCJ IF they took you to court, IF they won and IF you still then don't pay in time.  They don't just get to apply for, and then receive, one.

Okay, thank you. I'll keep an eye then.

Having reread it, it says "Our client has the right to commence court proceeding against you", so I misread it saying CST would be doing it, but it'd be DRP doing so.

It also says they have been instructed by DRP as the agent of Smart Parking in relation to the above debt.
9
Sorry what is GSV short for?
10
Looks like you were given the PCN because of the overhang, but thats not the contravention. You are right the response is nothing more than a template sent by the teaboy wait for the NTO we could also do with a GSV link
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10