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
    • Keirb99
    • By Keirb99 5th Feb 16, 11:54 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 11Thanks
    Keirb99
    Parking eye charge notice
    • #1
    • 5th Feb 16, 11:54 PM
    Parking eye charge notice 5th Feb 16 at 11:54 PM
    Hi all I am new to the site but have read many of other peoples parking eye threads and need some help. I have done a search to try and find a situation similar to mine but can't find one. Basically I parked in a car park which has recently been taken over by parking eye and had all intentions of paying for my time of being parked there but the machines wouldn't accept my registration. About a week later i received a letter through the post saying I owe them £100. I appealed to parking eye using the help from other forums on the site and I used a template which I edited to match my situation. I have received a letter declining my appeal with a POPLA reference number. I will upload what I initially sent as my appeal and more about the situation tomorrow as I am on my ipad and haven't currently got access to the computer I have filed everything on. Hopefully I will be able to get some help from people who know more about this than i do. I'm sorry if I've missed another thread the same as this please someone tell me if I have and I will delete this. Thankyou in advance to anyone who replies.
    Last edited by Keirb99; 21-02-2016 at 6:24 PM.
Page 3
    • Keirb99
    • By Keirb99 23rd Feb 16, 6:45 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Keirb99
    Okay so take the writing from D and edit it into A then take the D point off?

    I'll get there in the end.... it's only taken me a month ha.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Feb 16, 6:47 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep I think so, and if the writing under D repeats what you already have in A, then reduce it a bit to remove repetition.

    Then re-number ('re-letter') the later points so D isn't missing from the order!
    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.

    • Keirb99
    • By Keirb99 23rd Feb 16, 9:43 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Keirb99
    Right.. I think the appeal is at it's final stage and ready to be sent off..

    I've read over it twice and can't find any errors but please let me know if you find any.

    It is as follows..

    I should start this appeal by explaining the situation of how I was, as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxx, issued with a £100 parking charge notice (PCN) from ParkingEye. I am the registered keeper and this appeal will prove that I am not liable for the parking charge.
    The driver entered and parked in the **** car park in **** on **** **** of **** **** at ****. The driver parking at that time was aware that it was a 2 hour free stay and any further parking after that would need to be paid for. After shopping in **** the driver arrived back at the carpark and attempted to pay for their parking at the pay station. After typing in the registration for the vehicle several times and trying to pay, the driver could clearly see that there was a fault with the machine so they tried the next pay station next to it. After typing in the registration of the vehicle again several times in the second machine and it not working , the driver returned to the vehicle and located next to where the vehicle was parked there was a third pay station which when approached to try again to pay, was out of order. The driver then drove back over to the original pay station where they tried to pay originally and waited while another 2 people were using the machines and were also unsuccessful in making a payment for their parking. After attempting to pay for their parking again several times on both of the pay stations, the driver had no choice but to drive away as the car park was un-manned to ask for any help.

    Two weeks later I the registered keeper received a PCN of £100.

    Since receiving the parking charge I have done a lot of research into the charges from ParkingEye and have found countless sites stating it is a very common, misleading trap being set by this specific private parking company. As research shows, ParkingEye is even having a negative impact on the popular tourist locations around the UK due to errors of their own and tourists are being stung with a charge for so called ‘breach of contract’. As widely and very consistently reported online by the victims of such a parking charge, I now feel strong enough to exercise my right to appeal this to POPLA.

    The grounds for this appeal are as follows:
    • Insufficient information provided by signage
    • The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
    • No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    • no landowner authority
    • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability

    A) Insufficient information provided by signage.

    The signage says for 1 additional hour its £3.00 which the driver understood when they attempted to pay. The sign also says, ‘‘motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine’’ but when they did this the payment machine did not respond to the registration number resulting in them not being able to make the £3.00 payment and thus receiving the parking charge for this. There is no clear information on what to do in the event of failure of ParkingEye’s machines to take the VRN so when a problem arises, information regarding this doesn’t exist and therefore you receive a parking charge.

    I require that the operator provides documented evidence of the number of times the driver inputted the registration into the machine, this will obviously be documented on ParkingEye’s system if the machine was in proper operation on the day.

    ParkingEye has stated in the letter declining the appeal, that a contract is formed with the driver via signage detailing the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park. I find it hard to accept that a contract can be formed with lack of information on the signage around the carpark of how to pay for the parking. The Signage provided doesn’t provide enough information on the payment machines and this is clearly why so many people are failing to pay for the parking and being hit with such a charge. It also seems as this has been purposely done so that people will ‘fail to comply with the terms & conditions’ for this reason it is not believed that the driver could have been entered into a contract with ParkingEye for the property of where the driver parked because they didn’t fail to comply with any of the terms & conditions, they were simply mislead by the inadequate information supplied by the signage.

    POPLA is requested to check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. It is contended that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (which is denied here, due to a fault with the machinery being no fault of the drivers).

    The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'

    B) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

    ParkingEye's evidence shows no proof of department on the alleged exit time, merely photos of a car driving out. The image is poor, it is a picture of a registration plate and a set of lights, the rest is black and nothing else can be seen. With no photo evidence of the vehicle at the exit, how can ParkingEye justify this photo as proof of time of department when it could have been taken anywhere on the car park at any time. This is not proof of leaving the car park. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all.

    There were no signs to inform a driver how the data captured by ANPR would be used which is a breach of the ICO registration and BPA CoP and fails to tell a driver that they are being timed from the entrance, rather than 15 minutes later when the contract SHOULD start, at the P&D machine (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is the authority on when the contract starts in a P&D car park).

    C) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

    The Beavis case was considered to be a 'complex' contractual arrangement with a specifically argued 'legitimate interest'. Here, ParkingEye has shown no comparable 'legitimate interest' in enforcing their charge and nor have they shown it is anything more than a standard monetary contract, where GPEOL is still a requirement (as was reiterated in the Supreme Court hearing).

    The purported contract with the motorist is undoubtedly a simple financial contract where the loss is easily calculable, unlike the complex arrangement - a valuable licence to park free of charge at first, offset with a 'quid pro quo' £85 charge -in Parking Eye v Beavis. Here there is a clear financial interaction between the operator and motorist. The £100 'charge' is clearly an attempt to impose payment of a large sum in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty.

    Parking Eye seem to be under the misapprehension - and desperately hoping - that POPLA Assessors will swallow the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. They also seem to cling to the hope that POPLA will believe that the UTCCRS (now within the Consumer Rights Act 2015) do not apply somehow, to any parking charge case!

    With reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2 part 1 para 6) the charge is very clearly an unenforceable contract term because the operator is seeking to impose a charge in compensation that is vastly disproportionate to an (easily calculated) allegedly 'unpaid' parking tariff. It is noted that in their evidence, ParkingEye have not mentioned the Consumer Rights Act at all, so they have not made any argument at all that can disapply it. However, whether a defendant/appellant mentions the fairness of a contract term or not, courts are obliged to ALWAYS give consideration to the fairness/unfairness of any contract or term.

    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 and this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all.

    The Beavis case is not relevant to any other car park except that precise situation and location in that unique case (as the SC Judges were at pains to Tweet as soon as the astonishing decision was made public). A thorough review of the findings from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal hearings, shows that case has no application to a Pay and Display car park whatsoever.

    There is no 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a punitive charge against a motorist who had attempted to pay to park for the time actually parked. In this case the driver had no idea that they would later be unfairly charged when they actually tried to make the payment for parking but couldn’t could to faulty machinery. This is not the same as in the Beavis case where the driver was considered to have understood and accepted all terms which were 'clear and very prominent' and where there was no tariff in play to make it a standard contract. This charge is simply being enforced in an attempt to punish the motorist for no fault of their own.

    The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment, as regards any type of 'simple financial contract' such as this one where there is a quantified tariff. After all, both ParkingEye and the driver are citing the words from the earlier hearing as a support for the cases. This case is an unfair penalty and clearly differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgment.

    D) No landowner authority

    The 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, Parking Eye 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 no 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 Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye.

    Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award Parking Eye Limited could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss to them or the landowner at all and therefore there should be no charge.

    E) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.

    At this ANPR car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. These 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed!

    In the NTK before me I can see that the driver either not purchased the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted. This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder how the charge of £100 can differ so much from the price of parking time equalling to the sum of £3 clearly showing this has NOT cost ParkingEye anywhere near the £100 charge or even the £60 for the 14 day reduced charge. This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff).

    These are the omission from POFA 2012 in the NTK issued:
    ''9(2)The notice must—
    (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
    (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
    (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

    (i)specified in the notice; and

    (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4))”

    The NTK specifically fails on all counts. It even fails to describe the specific circumstances for such a parking charge amount due.

    The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.


    This concludes my POPLA appeal.
    Yours faithfully,

    Thanks in advance for any replies..
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Feb 16, 10:02 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You could add to this:

    I require that the operator provides documented evidence of the number of times the driver inputted the registration into the machine, this will obviously be documented on ParkingEye’s system if the machine was in proper operation on the day.

    Also I put the operator to strict proof that all payment machines were working at the point between 2 hour and 3 hours after the car entered this car park, showing the failure/error reports during that hour for all payment machines on site (VRNs can be partially redacted in this report but not any partial or complete attempt of this VRN). Failure to provide these records will support the driver's honest account.



    The only other thing that strikes me needs crossing out is the bit below because it's not yet at evidence stage:

    With reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2 part 1 para 6) the charge is very clearly an unenforceable contract term because the operator is seeking to impose a charge in compensation that is vastly disproportionate to an (easily calculated) allegedly 'unpaid' parking tariff. It is noted that in their evidence, ParkingEye have not mentioned the Consumer Rights Act at all, so they have not made any argument at all that can disapply it. However, whether a defendant/appellant mentions the fairness of a contract term or not, courts are obliged to ALWAYS give consideration to the fairness/unfairness of any contract or term.



    Oh, and C could be headed:

    C) This disproportionate charge is a penalty, not saved by the non-comparable Beavis case
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-05-2016 at 10:53 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.

    • Keirb99
    • By Keirb99 23rd Feb 16, 10:20 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Keirb99
    ''With reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2 part 1 para 6) the charge is very clearly an unenforceable contract term because the operator is seeking to impose a charge in compensation that is vastly disproportionate to an (easily calculated) allegedly 'unpaid' parking tariff. Courts are obliged to ALWAYS give consideration to the fairness/unfairness of any contract or term.''

    Does that look better now or leave unpaid parking tariff as the end?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Feb 16, 10:40 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That looks better.
    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.

    • Keirb99
    • By Keirb99 24th Feb 16, 10:19 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Keirb99
    Right, i'll get that sent off to POPLA i'll let you know of the outcome..
    • Keirb99
    • By Keirb99 9th May 16, 10:49 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Keirb99
    Just to let you all know..

    I received a letter from ParkingEye today and the case has been dropped!

    Many thanks to all those who helped me to put an appeal together, with all your help we won.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th May 16, 10:54 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's great news! Did they just not contest the POPLA appeal with any evidence?
    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.

    • R_Mindstate
    • By R_Mindstate 12th Aug 16, 8:37 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    R_Mindstate
    ParkingEye PCN
    I'm really glad to see that somebody managed to contest a PCN from ParkingEye, and was really hoping Coupon-mad could help me also!

    Although the set up of the car park is identical, my circumstances do differ. Essentially, I stopped at a service stop on the motorway to get a coffee so I could stay awake as it was quite late (10pm). Ironically, I ended up having a nap, which meant I was around 30 minutes over the 2 hour free stay. I wasn't made aware that there would be any parking charges at that time of night!

    I'm wasn't particularly hopeful that I have a case here, however just based on seeing the OP's "grounds for appeal" I was hoping there may be a chance I could appeal, but wanted to know your thoughts.

    Either way, thank you in advance.
    • Bethanpryor
    • By Bethanpryor 26th Sep 16, 12:17 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Bethanpryor
    HELP PLEASE.
    I have received a 'Claim Form' from the County Court Business Centre regarding a parking charge notice which I have not received. They have stated that the notice was issued 06/07/16 for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions.
    On this particular day my son drove my car with my husband in the passenger seat and me in the rear, he drove the car as a learner driver to go to his 'driving theory test' in Clarence House Newport South Wales.
    We pulled into the car park so my son and my husband could change driving places. We arrived early for the test so my son decided to complete a practise test on his phone, as he done this I checked to see how much the car park was on looking at the sign I looked straight at the closing time (arrived at approx. 6.15pm car park closed at 7pm) knowing my son's test would take around an hour I was unable to stay parked in the car park. He finished his practise test and went to the complete his 'real' test, my husband and I left the carpark after approx. 20minutes.
    I've not received any letters until this Court 'Claim Form' ordering me to pay £175.00.
    What do I do?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Sep 16, 1:00 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I see you've started your own thread so you will get help there.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 26-09-2016 at 1:25 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.

    • Bethanpryor
    • By Bethanpryor 26th Sep 16, 1:09 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Bethanpryor
    Thanks for replying but I can't see where the 'jump' is?
    • marganne
    • By marganne 2nd Oct 16, 2:59 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    marganne
    HELP Me too
    Hi, I am new to all this too. My problem is this. ANPR took a picture of me entering and leaving the parking lot. You can clearly see my blue badge in the windscreen My problem is this
    1. NO Disabled parking spaces
    2. Have been charged from time car drove in to park not as per ticket purchased.
    3. Has not taken note of parking ticket displayed in car.
    4. Machine says extra time can be purchased , NOT!!
    5.Had to go for change as machine does not take cards, notes nor give change!.
    6. Extremely bad spaces, had to dodge for driving area.

    Please help me, senior citizen (disabled) going crazy

    MAFB
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 16, 8:51 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi, I am new to all this too. My problem is this. ANPR took a picture of me entering and leaving the parking lot. You can clearly see my blue badge in the windscreen My problem is this
    1. NO Disabled parking spaces
    2. Have been charged from time car drove in to park not as per ticket purchased.
    3. Has not taken note of parking ticket displayed in car.
    4. Machine says extra time can be purchased , NOT!!
    5.Had to go for change as machine does not take cards, notes nor give change!.
    6. Extremely bad spaces, had to dodge for driving area.

    Please help me, senior citizen (disabled) going crazy

    MAFB
    .
    Originally posted by marganne


    Hiya - and welcome,

    You need to come off this thread and onto the forum - read the specific info thread near the top - NEWBIES READ THESE FAQS FIRST:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

    Just send ParkingEye the template appeal from that thread but add a copy of your Blue Badge and a copy of the pay and display ticket.

    Start your own thread about this for help and stick to your own thread by replying each time. You can see the 'new thread' button on the above link to page one.
    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.

    • dollymangan
    • By dollymangan 15th Oct 16, 12:01 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    dollymangan
    Parking eye
    Hi, my grandson has been using the Hartshead Moor services as a cut through to get to work, he is a security guard and works nights. He has been caught on camera going in at teatime and coming out at 6 in the morning, but there is an exit up the side of the truck parking which leads to a road, this is not on parking eye cameras, so i got my grandson to video himself driving in and then main entrance and then out of the cut through where there are no cameras, he had quite a few letters before we realised what was happening, have you any advice. Thank you
    • marganne
    • By marganne 15th Oct 16, 3:47 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    marganne
    Hello there, I am a newbie myself. You will need to read the above message to me and follow the directions from there. Wishing you all the best

    marganne
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Oct 16, 5:06 PM
    • 36,467 Posts
    • 73,293 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Hi, my grandson has been using the Hartshead Moor services as a cut through to get to work, he is a security guard and works nights. He has been caught on camera going in at teatime and coming out at 6 in the morning, but there is an exit up the side of the truck parking which leads to a road, this is not on parking eye cameras, so i got my grandson to video himself driving in and then main entrance and then out of the cut through where there are no cameras, he had quite a few letters before we realised what was happening, have you any advice. Thank you
    Originally posted by dollymangan
    As advised, read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES then start your own thread if you need further help. The driver has a very good case. It is not normally advised to reveal the driver's identity when appealing, but in this case it probably won't matter.
    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" - Laks
    • marganne
    • By marganne 18th Oct 16, 1:48 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    marganne
    POPLA Ref
    Hi, I have just received my POPLA ref number and rejection notice of appeal from ParkingEye. What should my next move be please
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Oct 16, 9:58 AM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 52,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi, I have just received my POPLA ref number and rejection notice of appeal from ParkingEye. What should my next move be please
    Originally posted by marganne
    Post your draft POPLA appeal in YOUR thread, not this one. Here is yours:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5538907

    To find your own threads again each time, easiest thing is to just click on your own username!

    So what to write in that POPLA appeal?

    There are template POPLA appeal points that I and some other posters contributed to, posted in September in 'POPLA Decisions' which is the top thread of the forum board. Read from the end and go back to September to find my posts with the long appeal wording to use, for 4 or 5 strong points of appeal open to you.

    You can copy most of them verbatim, into one deliberately VERY long POPLA appeal, which you will then be saving as a PDF and attaching under 'OTHER' on the POPLA website (not trying to write a short appeal to fit in the woefully inadequate 2000-character appeal box).

    Show us the resulting draft first. In your thread not here!

    Easier than it sounds as you are just copying from the templates. No link given; at the time of writing this, it's the penultimate page of this board's top thread.
    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

1,325Posts Today

6,975Users online

Martin's Twitter