Can anyone help? County Court Business Centre

[charitynjw]

I really must sound thick but by PPC do you mean the claimant

Private Parking Co, so yes.

[charitynjw]

I've just been reading into the bye law and it's hard to see where this covers. I know PD ports do own part of the deep birth dock around the corner but this site is the mandale group I do believe.
it's actually up for sale at the moment th ed car park in question and has been subject to alot of bad press due to the charges now being 24hours. I'll link in the advert if it helps ; https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property...-77191439.html

It is like pulling teeth, getting info re byelaws.
But the onus is on the parking co to prove that the land is not subject to byelaws.
Worst way, put them to strict proof.

[ostell]

As it is a docks area then byelaws no doubt existed, and still will for the remaining docks but will not have been repealed just because there is a leisure marina there.

Harbour Commissioners office?

[charitynjw]

But also important to source copies of original documents, in particular a notice to driver (NtD) &/or postal notice to registered keeper (NtK). Post these up on here when you can.
As well as the SAR to the parking co, send a CPR 31.14 request to either the parking co or, if applicable, their sols.
Ask for all documentation they will rely on, pus a copy of the landlord/managing agent agreement with the parking co, a copy of the KADOE agreement with the DVLA, & copies & plans of the site signage.
Keep a copy, get proof of sending.

+ any chance of you taking pics of the site signage & posting them up?

[Danny_kitch]

[ostell]

Did you have a ticket or permit for parking? If not then there was no offer of a contract to park and therefore no breach of any alleged terms. The only claimant would be the landholder for trespass.

Here's some text I have for this situation.
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[Danny_kitch]

I had no ticket & no permit in situ no. How would I deal with this then? Do I send this as a response via a court or via letter?

Also do I still need to send all the previous detail requests.

Thank you

[Danny_kitch]

P.s the car park is "pay and display and also permit"

[Danny_kitch]

Hi anyone give me an update?

[charitynjw]

That sign looks to be in excellent condition for one which was present at the parking site....... in 2015?

[Danny_kitch]

I'm a little lost as to what I'm meant to do here?

[charitynjw]

I'm a little lost as to what I'm meant to do here?

The alleged breach of contract must be based on the site signage which was present at the time of the alleged contravention.
I'm guessing that the sign you have posted up is not what was there in 2015?

[Danny_kitch]

I honestly wouldn't know. That is the sign in situ at the moment.

[charitynjw]

I honestly wouldn't know. That is the sign in situ at the moment.

& clearly the existing sign is unlikely to have been the one which would have been present in 2015; there is no evidence of weathering.