IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Appealing PCN on basis of genuine pre-estimated loss post-Beavis
Options
iamc12ab
Posts: 13 Forumite
Hello,
I have recently received a PCN for £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days) for parking overnight on a Manchester Metrolink carpark. As this is a free carpark to metrolink customers only and has no other commercial interests, I was planning on challenging the PCN on the grounds that is does not represent a genuine pre-estimated loss to the landowner.
After doing some research, I have become aware of the Parking eye v Beavis case, in which Beavis challenged a PCN on similar grounds and subsequently lost - thereby invalidating any case of challenging against not representing genuine losses to the landowner.
Therefore,I was wondering whether anyone has had success in challenging a PCN on the grounds of genuine pre-estimated loss since the Beavis case, and if so, could offer any advice as to how I can challenge it in my appeal - which is currently at POPLA stage.
Thank you in advance.
I have recently received a PCN for £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days) for parking overnight on a Manchester Metrolink carpark. As this is a free carpark to metrolink customers only and has no other commercial interests, I was planning on challenging the PCN on the grounds that is does not represent a genuine pre-estimated loss to the landowner.
After doing some research, I have become aware of the Parking eye v Beavis case, in which Beavis challenged a PCN on similar grounds and subsequently lost - thereby invalidating any case of challenging against not representing genuine losses to the landowner.
Therefore,I was wondering whether anyone has had success in challenging a PCN on the grounds of genuine pre-estimated loss since the Beavis case, and if so, could offer any advice as to how I can challenge it in my appeal - which is currently at POPLA stage.
Thank you in advance.
0
Comments
-
Which PPC are you dealing with here?
If you're going to be spending time on researching the points on which to overcome this charge, then GPEOL is very much yesterday's news since Beavis.
Work on other things like:
Locus standi
Contract with landowner
SignagePlease note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Not relevant land as well.
So never disclose driver identity.REVENGE IS A DISH BETTER SERVED COLD0 -
The ticket is issues by a company called Care Parking.
For the not relevant land approach, I have already been through the internal appeals process in response to the windscreen PCN. Could they use this to prove I was the driver?0 -
Did you admit you were the driver in your initial appeal?
Look up the many other Metrolink cases to see the bases of appeals.REVENGE IS A DISH BETTER SERVED COLD0 -
-
Thanks for the responses. I did not explicitly admit I was the driver, but I did use this template which states I promise not to do this again. The template is also for a council issued ticket as I mistakenly thought it was one as it was on a metrolink car park and looked very official. Here is my initial appeal:Thank you for taking into account my appeal. I am appealing on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur because there were no clear signs informing me of the regulations (as required by Schedule 6 of Traffic Signs Regulations 1994).
Though the PCN is the result of allegedly Parking overnight, I argue that the lack of signs on the Crumpsall metrolink stop failed to inform me of the regulations. As the signage (or lack thereof) failed to inform me of what was required, no offence has been committed under the Road Traffic Act of 1991.
I believe that the council should exercise fairness in cancelling a ticket that, according to the guidance, is perfectly justified to be cancelled. I will of course endeavour to avoid this again, but I feel that the issue of a ticket is an unlawful action inconsistent with the official precedent.
In hindsight I now realise I shouldn't have rushed in to send this without proper research. If I do not have a leg to stand on please let me know as I would prefer to pay the discounted rated if I am doomed for rejection at POPLA.
I am hoping I can claim to have sent this as acting as the registered keeper... but any opinion on how plausible this is would be appreciated.0 -
If Parking eye v Beavis was your only line of appeal, you will loose the case.
With supreme court ruling, it's a no win situation I'm afraid.0 -
Thanks for the responses. I did not explicitly admit I was the driver, but I did use this template which states I promise not to do this again. The template is also for a council issued ticket as I mistakenly thought it was one as it was on a metrolink car park and looked very official. Here is my initial appeal:
In hindsight I now realise I shouldn't have rushed in to send this without proper research. If I do not have a leg to stand on please let me know as I would prefer to pay the discounted rated if I am doomed for rejection at POPLA.
I am hoping I can claim to have sent this as acting as the registered keeper... but any opinion on how plausible this is would be appreciated.
Nobody here will advise you to pay a scammer.
Look at the most recent successful appeals in the POPLA Decisions thread and pick the bits that best suit your case.
Not the landowner.
No standing to issue charges
No contract with the driver
Inadequate signage
NTK not POFA 2012 compliant
Not relevant land.
You need to start reading up on this to work out which of these and any other points apply in your case.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
No, it depends on the circumstances.If Parking eye v Beavis was your only line of appeal, you will loose the case.
With supreme court ruling, it's a no win situation I'm afraid.
Did the PPC pay £52,000 a year to farm the car park? Was the charge commercially justified, was the car parking being abused by computers? Were the signs as clear and as plentiful as those in Beavis. Was this an overstay or a bilk?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
...or trespass.Was this an overstay or a bilk?
What do the signs say about overnight? [trespass] or is there a time limit [overstay].
Don't believe these to be Pay and Display [Bilk]0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards