Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flipping heck !!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4...&alloworigin=1

    Comment


    • #32
      An encouraging development - Brent BC have just emailed me that they have now instructed LCP to submit planning applications for their signs in the car park, and they also state that LCP have agreed to submit a planning application to resolve the matter. This is absolute confirmation that the signs were there without planning (advertising) approval - which is illegal according to the town and Country Planning Act. Therefor, having relied on the illegal signs to form a contract with me to pay for parking or face a penalty their case must now ( surely) be invalidated ?

      I haven't heard about the ANPR cameras but that seems a side issue now. So, my thinking is I'll write to LCP and not only ask them to cancel their claim, but to refund the 50 I paid them, under threat of me taking them to court and getting national publicity.in which case every car park fee and every fine they have imposed may well have to be refunded ? I just need to tie up the case law with regards to illegal contracts.

      Comment


      • #33
        Ok, things are moving quickly now. I have found some more research data which has led me to write to Brent BC and advise they should either cover or remove the illegal signs in the car park. this would mean LCP can not charge for parking until they get planning approval. I have also written to LCP's regulatory body, AOS, through whom they can obtain driver registration data from the DVLA. I have forward AOS the info from Brent BC and suggested they suspend/revoke LCP's membership immediately, especially as LCP have effectively been rogue members for all the years they have not had planning approval. This would mean LCP cannot access registration data and contact anyone breaching what is now an illegal and unenforceable contract. Finally I have emailed LCP and informed them of what has taken place with regards to Brent BC and AOS, and have asked for what I paid to be refunded, with costs. I hope they are bricking it now back at LCP HQ ..I am certainly feeling much better about this now, revenge is wonderful , almost worth the 50 I paid. If LCP had just accepted my payment and let it go at that, rather than being greedy and wanting another 50 and then setting the dogs on to me via their debt collection agency, this would all never have escalated as it has..

        One other thing is that they are unable to apply for retrospective planning approval for the advertising signs, so all the previous fines and fees they have issued over the years can never be legitimised . Am now going to sit and wait and see what they do and just enjoy Christmas...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by cardiac arrest View Post
          Ok, things are moving quickly now. I have found some more research data which has led me to write to Brent BC and advise they should either cover or remove the illegal signs in the car park. this would mean LCP can not charge for parking until they get planning approval. I have also written to LCP's regulatory body, AOS, through whom they can obtain driver registration data from the DVLA. I have forward AOS the info from Brent BC and suggested they suspend/revoke LCP's membership immediately, especially as LCP have effectively been rogue members for all the years they have not had planning approval. This would mean LCP cannot access registration data and contact anyone breaching what is now an illegal and unenforceable contract. Finally I have emailed LCP and informed them of what has taken place with regards to Brent BC and AOS, and have asked for what I paid to be refunded, with costs. I hope they are bricking it now back at LCP HQ ..I am certainly feeling much better about this now, revenge is wonderful , almost worth the 50 I paid. If LCP had just accepted my payment and let it go at that, rather than being greedy and wanting another 50 and then setting the dogs on to me via their debt collection agency, this would all never have escalated as it has..

          One other thing is that they are unable to apply for retrospective planning approval for the advertising signs, so all the previous fines and fees they have issued over the years can never be legitimised . Am now going to sit and wait and see what they do and just enjoy Christmas...
          Hi cardiac arrest. yep they should be bricking it now.

          Comment


          • #35
            Well done CA. A lot of hard work on your part, and I hope it now pays off fully.

            It would be unfortunate for LCP if you get final vindication from them, and the information you have uncovered found its way onto the various websites concerned with fighting parking fines.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by stuckinarut View Post

              Hi cardiac arrest. yep they should be bricking it now.
              They should, but I'm not naive enough to think they won't just play silly beggars. On a more positive note, AOS have been quite sympathetic when I thought they would just be very protective. Presented with the details I am hopeful LCP will be suspended pretty quick. If I get my 50 back it is a result, I doubt LCP will pay any more than that but one can always hope...I have been on other forums but the general opinion there was failure to have PP is not a big winner at court, some said it could be fixed by retrospective planning approval (which it can not). I'm not intending to go to court in this now, I can use Brent BC and AOS to cause more damage and loss of income to LCP than using court to get back my 50. They are 2 separate issues, one is revenge, one is recovery..at the moment revenge is tasting sweeter although I suspect AOS might lean on LCP because they will not want to risk it going to court and this whole issue become national news. Having said that, I did email the local paper in Brent to inform them but they haven't come back yet..I might hold fire on this though. One other thing I could do is contact the company that have leased the land to LCP..I think the lease runs out in about 4 years and they might not be sympathetic to LCP renewing ? I only have a couple of names and an address for this company at the moment.

              Comment


              • #37
                Another update,,,AOS/BPA are now backtracking and have said not have advertising consent (an unlawful act) nor planning approval for the ANPR ..both of which are contrary to the BNP Code of Practice isn't enough to make the PCN invalid, in their opinion...and LCP are quite within their rights to pursue their claim. Meanwhile they are still waiting for LCP to reply to them..

                Another issue has arisen during the investigation, which is 'grace periods'. The BPA tell operators not to let the public know about this, but in the Code of Practice it states operators must allow drivers time to pass through the ANPR cameras, find a parking spot, and read the signs..whether they stay and park or decide to then leave. In addition the BPA CoP states that a grace period should be allowed at the end of the parking stay, and this should not be less than 10 minutes. LCP allow 11 minutes in total, which must be the mandatory 10 plus 1 minute to read the T&Cs etc...

                I have copies of the T&Cs from the car park, and the other signs like parking charges and so on...it took me 7 minutes to read these, so one minute is wholly inadequate. Just to remind you I was in the car park 16 minutes, and LCP said my overstay was 5 minutes..

                There has been some debate too about at what stage the 'contract' starts...is it as you pass the ANPR cameras (ie before you have had chance to read the T&Cs) or is it when you pay for your ticket assuming you've read the signs or chosen to ignore them. ? LCP state on their Pay and Display sign and their T&Cs sign that "Any length of stay is payable", but that's not strictly true is it, because of the grace periods ?

                I'm not an expert on contract formation, offer, acceptance etc ..but so far we have illegal signs and grace periods which are not only not mentioned but totally inadequate for someone wanting to read the T&C's etc.. I've read one case (Parking Eye) who allowed 30 minutes grace period...some allow 15 minutes, others just 10 minutes...and LCP 11 minutes...

                Drivers parking in these places are also mislead if they think by paying their money for a parking period enables them to stay for that period. It all depends on how long between passing the ANPR camera and actually parking up, reading the signs, getting yourself ready and finding the change to put in the pay machine. Unbeknown to you there might only be one minute grace allowed for you to do this. So you merrily go shopping looking at your ticket which tells you what time you need to be back. Wrong. If like me, you need 7 minutes just to read the signs, never mind the parking up etc.then your 60 minute car parking ticket is worth perhaps only 52 minutes. But, you take the full hour, get to your car, load your shopping in the boot etc etc..and drive off and pass through the exit ANPR cameras 10 minutes later. Total time recorded by the ANPR has you on the private land for 78 minutes, you paid for 60 minutes...and you were allowed a grace period of 11 minutes, so you are over parked by 7 minutes...and you'll get a PCN, and have to pay 50.

                Comment


                • #38
                  https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/91...nocent-drivers

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I was sent a copy of this draft bill, it has a long way to go yet, years probably. The BPA should be abolished and a new regulator brought in because the BPA just allow breaches of their code to be ignored, no surprise there.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      After a bit of communication with QDR solicitors for ZZPS they have given me until 11 Feb tp pay the 146 (50 parking fine, 96 fees)..."before further actions are commenced". I am not going tp pay because I think I have enough evidence to defend. I've raised lots of issues, most of which may be worth a mention but not necessarily persuasive enough , I think they key element is the grace periods, despite the BPA saying these are only allowed if you pay for parking...which is the opposite of what it says in their CoP...

                      The BPA state a minimum of 10 mins grace be allowed to leave a car park, LCP quoted this to me and state they offer 11 minutes, not 10 ...'more than the BPA recommend' ..but, the BPA also state a grace period should be provided upon entering the car park , which is obviously needed to allow passing the ANPR registering system, parking, reading signs , and putting cash in the machine. How long that period is is up to the car park operators (according to BPA)..but LCP have offered nothing, no grace period upon entry...only 11 minutes to leave, as per the BPA CoP.

                      Thus we have 5 minutes 'overstay'...I have copies of the signs, the T&C's etc..where it states "any stay is chargeable" (which cannot be true)..I can argue 5 minutes minimum grace period should have been allowed upon entry to the car park, and quote as many cases as anyone can find for me..One has already been posted in a P Eye case, which helps put a persuasive defence together, should it be needed. I don't think breaches of planning regs is going to work, or breaches in process by LCP...I could argue the LCP costs, which despite Beavis not being applicable here (a paid for car park) I can also argue that LCP's main revenues are not reliant on fines, but on the contract parking and pay and display parking sites they own in London.

                      Would appreciate any final observations, comments, advice, case histories....thank you

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Another little issue has come up, which I've seen mentioned in a Daily Mirror article (no less..) It's about the appeal process, when the car park operator rejects your original appeal and gives you 14 days to pay the reduced rate, or else. The Mirror said if you appeal to POPLA within that 14 day period,then even if you lose the discounted rate should still be on offer. I appealed on day one of the rejection letter from the operator , but it took them 16 days to submit their appeal to POPLA, thereby ensuring I was outside the 14 day period before I could even see what they submitted. Does this have any significance, or not ? thank you

                        Comment

                        Who's Viewing Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
                        Who's Viewed Thread:
                        Working...
                        X