Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • alfa145
    • By alfa145 26th Jan 16, 9:21 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 29Thanks
    alfa145
    NCP PCN by NCP - Chalfont & Latimer Railway / LU Station
    • #1
    • 26th Jan 16, 9:21 PM
    NCP PCN by NCP - Chalfont & Latimer Railway / LU Station 26th Jan 16 at 9:21 PM
    I received a PCN issued by NCP in Chalfont railway car park for no ticket displayed. This is correct, I might have forgotten to put a ticket on the car that day.

    I received the PCN In January offering reduced payment of £60 if paid in 14 days or £100 thereafter, nothing in the post yet. It seems a lot for a £4 parking loss. Do I still have grounds to appeal?

    I read the newbie thread and it looks like the best course of action is to send a template letter within 28 days (as stated on the ticket), but this concentrates on sign-age - I can't remember if the sign-age is adequate or not.

    Would really appreciate some advice - many thanks
    Last edited by alfa145; 29-02-2016 at 9:58 AM.
Page 2
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 22nd Feb 16, 3:46 PM
    • 5,355 Posts
    • 4,886 Thanks
    pappa golf
    the very point that the land comes under railway bylaws should be marked CLEARLY before anything else on the POPLa form , you want POPLa to kick this out as they cannot adjudicate


    the landowner (not the scum) can then attempt to press charges for a railway bylaw offence , you then produce your full set of photos showing that you had no knowledge of being on land that came under bylaws.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 16, 5:35 PM
    • 40,403 Posts
    • 52,289 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    POPLA don't kick out byelaws cases, they still assess them.

    And we know the OP will win if the usual script of 'throw the kitchen sink at them' is followed. He'll win on 'no keeper liability' or 'no landowner authority' I expect.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • alfa145
    • By alfa145 26th Feb 16, 2:02 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    alfa145
    It will soon be time to get this sent off (next week). How is the below revised version. I have re-worked the NTK not received section and added for Railway not relevant land:


    Latest draft: Dear POPLA,
    PCN Number: xxx
    POPLA Verification Code: xxx
    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 parking charge notice (PCN) issued by NCP.
    I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
    2. Railway Land is Not ‘Relevant Land’
    3. No standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
    4. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
    5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
    To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by NCP. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

    The alleged infringement occurred on xx/01/2016 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by xx/02/2016 . As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that NCP provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

    The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

    2. Railway Land is Not ‘Relevant Land’
    Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

    3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, NCP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has neither automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put NCP to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between NCP and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to NCP.
    In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

    4. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
    The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required.
    The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:
    “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”
    For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.
    When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:
    "There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision". After inspecting the signs after the driver received the charge, I noted that the signs are grey or blue background and all text is blue, making the small text difficult to read. The signs were also unlit which makes them very difficult to read in the hours which the car park is open (24 hours), especially if arriving when dark during winter. These were easily missed as they are on one end of the car park only, with low height which could easily be concealed by cars, and not by any lighting.
    There were no signs or road markings to indicate that the area was private property or in any way restricted, and no signage indicating the area was private before entering the road.
    Furthermore, the signage states a PCN "may" be issued. That is not a clear unambiguous warning.
    The requirement to pay £100 is not clear and prominent as the Supreme Court commented on in Beavis. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.

    5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss but an unenforceable penalty as Parking Eye v Beavis can easily be distinguished from this case.
    If a contract was formed between the driver and Operator it would be a simple financial consumer contract. An offer of parking for a set sum was made in return for a small payment. This makes plain that the sum being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors or minor underpayment, and is consequently unenforceable. As this is a simple financial contract any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If The Operator believes that inadequate payment was made (which their PCN fails to make clear) their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. The charge is clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the supposed unpaid tariff. If The Operator believes their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this has been calculated.
    I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis. In that situation the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking places. It was determined that the contract was not a financial one in that there was no economic transaction between ParkingEye and the motorist. This was not changed by the later judgment in the Supreme Court.
    This is in stark contrast to the present case where there is an economic transaction between the Operator and the motorist, and no restriction on the time of stay was made provided payment of the tariff was made.
    This car park is no different to any other commercial enterprise. There can be no argument of commercial justification allowing what would otherwise be a clear penalty simply because a small payment was purportedly not made when the vehicle would otherwise have been welcome to park as it did.
    A contractual term which imposes the requirement to pay a disproportionately large sum for failing to pay a far smaller one is the very essence of an unlawful penalty. Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.
    Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility and Parking Eye as that was their only income. As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification as the car was welcome to park as it did in return for a small payment to the Operator who is already making income from the site.
    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.
    Yours faithfully
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Feb 16, 7:24 PM
    • 40,403 Posts
    • 52,289 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I noticed 'BCP' instead of 'BPA in your point #4.

    I would edit your first post on this whole thread and anything that talks about the driver/who parked/displayed a ticket (or not) because some PPCs are nosy and you are appealing under the POFA, as keeper, which is your strongest appeal point.

    And I would just cross out this end of this sentence and add a full stop instead, short and to the point:

    Therefore there can be no keeper liability. and as a result I request that NCP provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.
    And as POPLA are being (in some posters' opinions) idiotic about the Beavis case applying to standard contracts when it very clearly does not, we need to be MUCH stronger with our argument on the rationale of the charge. Not just no GPEOL which POPLA won't read properly and will dismiss at the drop of a hat.

    Your last point of appeal should be like this, I would suggest:

    5) Neither irrelevant case law (ParkingEye v Beavis, which is not applicable) nor the remedy under the Railway byelaws can support or provide a rationale for this disproportionate private parking charge.

    (a)
    It is believed that this land is covered by Railway Byelaws and I put NCP to strict proof to the contrary. As such, the remedy for any breach is an actual 'penalty' as defined in those byelaws. Prescribed statutory rules (not the BPA CoP) apply to penalties and the offer of parking is made by the Train Operating Company (TOC) or landowner, only by virtue of the byelaws, in the same way that any offence can only flow from defined restrictions within those byelaws. A parking offence can only be pursued in the Magistrates Court by the landowner/TOC themselves which is the only true legitimate interest on this land which is under statutory control.

    The car park is already offered/controlled by the TOC which has the lawful remedy of a byelaws penalty open to them. There is no 'legitimate' interest in NCP re-offering the spaces under wholly different terms and charging £100 for their own profit. Two separate sets of terms, obligations and remedies relating to the same parking behaviour cannot co-exist; the land falls under byelaws so there is no scope for what seems to be potentially, a bribe: 'pay us £100 and we won't tell the TOC to pursue the matter under the applicable byelaws'.

    Where there is any ambiguity regarding duplication or confusion in contractual or statutory terms/charges or obligations, the interpretation which most favours a consumer must prevail. In this case the interpretation which most favours a registered keeper appellant, is that NCP have no 'legitimate interest' in imposing their own 'charge' instead of a byelaws penalty, which only applies to an established driver.

    NCP or the TOC should have identified the alleged offender and the TOC should then have followed their own byelaws procedures; their only legitimate interest in the matter, if they believed there was a case against the driver that day.



    (b) NCP seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors will swallow the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (NCP and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.

    There the similarities end. The Beavis case has no application here, except in favour of my case as appellant.

    That decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking licence' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.

    The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals and certainly not those which are regarding a Pay and Display site where the alleged loss (tariff) begins as a tangible sum.

    This is clearly a 'standard' monetary dispute over an alleged unpaid tariff.

    In a standard economic dispute over a financial transaction between a consumer and a trader, like this one, the loss is easily calculable.

    By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from this sort of financial contract flowing from alleged non-payment of a quantifiable sum to NCP.

    As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty.

    But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, so the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'. If that was the case, then every alleged underpayment of a quantifiable sum between any trader and consumer could be escalated x 100. If you underpay your paper bill by £1 - the amount due remains at £1, same as in this case - it cannot escalate to £100 because the Beavis case rationale does not apply to standard contracts.

    In Beavis, the difference was there was no small sum owed and so, to reach their decision, the Judges had to consider other interests and the value of the free licence to park at that location made it a far more complex contract than this one. None of the reasons that gave Parking Eye a legitimate interest which disengaged the 'penalty rule' in their case against Mr Beavis are present in this material case, in which the penalty rule remains firmly engaged and where there is a quantified tariff in play.

    The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment from the same case. The Judges set apart the Beavis contract from this type of 'simple financial contract'. This is one the Judges had seen many times before, where there is a quantified small sum at stake in the first instance as a result of a primary obligation.

    This sort of contract was not under discussion in the Beavis case. In fact, the Supreme Court considered that Lord Dunedin's four tests to identify an unenforceable penalty were still a "useful tool" in deciding whether a simple damages clause in a standard contract was 'unconscionable' or 'extravagant'.

    The penalty rule is clearly engaged in this case of a standard contract with a quantified tariff, but unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis it is not disengaged by NCP merely pointing to the Beavis case as if it has blanket relevance (otherwise your local paper shop could point to the Beavis case regarding that £1 underpaid paper bill, as could any trader over any small sum owed). Clearly the 'tweet' from the Supreme Court on the day that their decision was handed down, made it clear that was not the intention of the judgment which turned on its own facts regarding a complex set of circumstances, relevant to a complex contract of its kind only.

    At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that: “The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.”

    In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.

    The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''

    Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest NCP has in enforcing their £100 charge instead of the 'outstanding tariff' (or indeed instead of the TOC enforcing the penalty arguably arising under the byelaws) is NCP's profit alone.

    This position is reinforced in the earlier judgment from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:

    "44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

    45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

    47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

    The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6 Bing. 141 at 148:

    “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequencecof the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

    The Consumer Rights Act 2015 includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed and is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers. It is applicable to this case.

    The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before.

    'ENTIRELY DIFFERENT'. So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this standard economic contract. As NCP have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for escalating a pound or two parking tariff to £100, they fall foul of the penalty rule...just as ParkingEye would have, if they had taken a 'standard contract' case to Supreme Court level.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 29-02-2016 at 1:30 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • alfa145
    • By alfa145 29th Feb 16, 9:30 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    alfa145
    Many thanks coupon mad - I'll be submitting it tomorrow as a PDF, revised based on your last comment. Will update when there is any progress to report!
    • Autolycus2000
    • By Autolycus2000 14th Aug 16, 2:36 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Autolycus2000
    In earlier posts in this thread the OP was saying there was no mention of byelaws on the signage.

    But if you look at the first of the signage photos the OP posted via Google (sorry I'm not allowed to include a link) and read section 8 it says byelaws MAY apply - which is the wording NCP seems to use in all railway car park T&Cs.

    So is there a sure fire way of knowing if byelaws apply? Can it be taken as read that they apply at all LU station car parks?

    And is there an update, please, on how the appeal was decided? I'm about to start a similar appeal myself so would be interested to know if this one worked.
    • DollyDee
    • By DollyDee 14th Aug 16, 3:09 PM
    • 621 Posts
    • 635 Thanks
    DollyDee
    Look at post #2032, Page 102, in the POPLA Decisions sticky - 1st thread on page 1. They won (NCP decided not to contest).
    • Castle
    • By Castle 14th Aug 16, 3:10 PM
    • 1,061 Posts
    • 1,316 Thanks
    Castle
    So is there a sure fire way of knowing if byelaws apply? Can it be taken as read that they apply at all LU station car parks?
    Originally posted by Autolycus2000
    This is a list of "Car Park Assets" owned by TFL, which would suggest that they are subject to the Byelaws.
    https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/#on-this-page-11
    • alfa145
    • By alfa145 14th Aug 16, 7:36 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    alfa145
    Hi - yes I won with no contest, very straight forward and I see you noticed the ambiguity in the wording as I did. That is a useful link posted by castle.

    NCP have now installed ANPR in both of the car parks at this station. I use autopay but it has not been 100% accurate so do keep an eye on the days they charge you. If wrong they have been quick at sorting though.

    Good luck with the appeal
    • Autolycus2000
    • By Autolycus2000 14th Aug 16, 9:04 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Autolycus2000
    Thanks. Yes, I'd agree with you that byelaws would therefore apply in the car parks at all the stations in that spreadsheet.
    • Autolycus2000
    • By Autolycus2000 14th Aug 16, 9:09 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Autolycus2000
    Hi - yes I won with no contest, very straight forward and I see you noticed the ambiguity in the wording as I did. That is a useful link posted by castle.

    NCP have now installed ANPR in both of the car parks at this station. I use autopay but it has not been 100% accurate so do keep an eye on the days they charge you. If wrong they have been quick at sorting though.

    Good luck with the appeal
    Originally posted by alfa145
    Well done!

    Details of my one are on pepipoo if you're interested. I can't post links but if you search for "
    PCN from NCP in LU station car park" you should find it.
    • alfa145
    • By alfa145 15th Aug 16, 10:55 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    alfa145
    You have an interesting point with the wording on the new sign - "Remember to pay before you leave this car park" - there is no clarification if it means on foot or before driving off.

    I have had issues with the Dash app (aside from being not very user friendly), I have often had timeouts and slow response when trying to pay. I gave feedback, and to NCP but they claimed it stated in the T&Cs (I've not checked) that they are not responsible for if the app doesn't work. Not a great position to be in as the customer, playing pass the buck between the 2 separate companies.

    Good luck with your challenge - I would use my letter and add in an extra point for unclear signage regarding the payment before leaving the car park. It is very easy to do, all via online portal. I think the length of the letter puts them off to be honest as it will take considerable time for them to counter each point.
    • THEPUMA
    • By THEPUMA 11th Oct 16, 5:52 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    THEPUMA
    Hi Alfa145.


    I also am planning to appeal 8 parking penalties from NCP re Chalfont & Latimer.


    Do you have a copy of the final wording you used that you can either post or email to me?


    Many thanks
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 11th Oct 16, 6:04 PM
    • 5,355 Posts
    • 4,886 Thanks
    pappa golf
    NOTE: there is an offence of failing to buy a ticket , but no bylaw offence for fail to display


    make sure you go down the right track
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 7:25 PM
    • 40,403 Posts
    • 52,289 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi Alfa145.
    I also am planning to appeal 8 parking penalties from NCP re Chalfont & Latimer.

    Do you have a copy of the final wording you used that you can either post or email to me?
    Originally posted by THEPUMA
    You should look at mixu's thread (no link given!).

    His win is recent & shows the POPLA appeal. You can find the thread on the first few pages or look up his username & find his threads.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • THEPUMA
    • By THEPUMA 11th Oct 16, 7:43 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    THEPUMA
    Found it thanks. You are a legend. I shall copy it word for word and add in the section about not being able to identify the driver. 'Any thanks.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 11th Oct 16, 7:46 PM
    • 5,355 Posts
    • 4,886 Thanks
    pappa golf
    make sure to highlight BYLAW CASE in your appeal heading, it should then be put on hold , and hopefully kicked out
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • THEPUMA
    • By THEPUMA 11th Oct 16, 7:48 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    THEPUMA
    Ok great thanks I will do.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 11th Oct 16, 7:54 PM
    • 5,355 Posts
    • 4,886 Thanks
    pappa golf
    if others agree?
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 7:57 PM
    • 40,403 Posts
    • 52,289 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Found it thanks. You are a legend. I shall copy it word for word and add in the section about not being able to identify the driver. 'Any thanks.
    Originally posted by THEPUMA
    Probably not quite copying it verbatim! Read it, there's specific stuff about the pay-by-phone system that might not be relevant for a start.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

74Posts Today

3,036Users online

Martin's Twitter