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
    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 19th Apr 17, 6:04 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 8Thanks
    studiousowl
    PCN from CPP at Hospital
    • #1
    • 19th Apr 17, 6:04 PM
    PCN from CPP at Hospital 19th Apr 17 at 6:04 PM
    Hello,

    Earlier this month I received a PCN from CPP at St George's Hospital. I am a student there and have been parking on site in one of the many staff car parks for almost a year now. I did receive a PCN from them once before in March of last year which I paid.
    I have been reading this forum for a while now, and although the NEWBIE thread is very helpful, I do have a few questions:

    1- I am technically in the wrong as I was parked in a restricted area without a valid permit. Can I still appeal?
    2- I understand that most appeals are rejected and go to POPLA. If the appeal to POPLA is lost what will the charge incurred be? At the moment, the amount due is £80 (£40 if paid within 14 days - it is currently still £40 although now on day 19). I am just worried as unfortunately the stereotype of broke student rings true here - and as much as I'd like to fight the system - I am worried that the currently barely affordable £40 may balloon up to something more unfortunate!

    I'd really appreciate your help.
    Thanks!
Page 2
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Jun 17, 8:53 PM
    • 14,532 Posts
    • 22,858 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Also, the DVLA have replied to my email about CPP - essentially shrugging me off to BPA:

    So unfortunately that didn't work.
    So what exactly did you say to the DVLA?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 15th Jun 17, 8:22 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Sorry for late response - mid-exam season... I am working on the POPLA appeal and will post it here shortly
    This is the email I sent to the DVLA:

    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing regarding a Penalty Charge Notice I have received from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) on the XXX. I appealed this charge and received a lengthy letter from them, part of which states:
    “the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator
    does not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not
    the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address”

    This is a very misleading statement and is a misrepresentation of the law as stated below:
    xxxxxxxxxxx
    CPP are misleading both myself, and others, to their detriment in the context of the PoFA 2012. I am writing to you as I do not have faith in the BPA in dealing with this issue. I would like to know what action you will take considering this is not a BPA code of practice issue at all, it is a misrepresentation of the law by this company which continues to bully and mislead citizens into paying these unnecessary charges.
    I hope to hear from you soon.

    -----------------------------------------
    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 24th Jun 17, 1:52 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Draft POPLA appeal
    Hello - here is my draft POPLA appeal. I was having trouble wording the section under keeper liability where I wanted to mention my complaint to the DVLA (and the DVLA confirming that CPP did not request the registered keeper data from them) - so not sure if it is okay?



    POPLA Ref: XXXXXXXX
    CPP Parking PC no:
    XXXXXXXX

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX and am appealing a parking charge from CPP on the following points:

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.”


    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.


    In addition, in reply to my initial appeal, the operator states: Paragraph 8(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator does not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them.
    This is a complete misrepresentation of the law, as shown below:

    link here

    Following an official complaint to the DVLA regarding this matter, the DVLA confirmed that they have not received a request for the registered keeper data for vehicle registration number XXXXX
    The operator must obtain the keeper's data from the Secretary of State (i.e. the DVLA) and there is no other option in the statute for getting keeper data in any other way.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They will not be able to do so, because the driver was not me.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:


    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    3. The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    link here

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    link here

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas.

    Evidence that the sign at the entrance is obscured and hidden:


    The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    link here

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    link here

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    And the same chart is reproduced here:

    link here

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''


    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.


    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    link here

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to put signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name, as legal action regarding land use disputes is generally a matter for the landowner only.

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    Kind regards,

    Registered Keeper
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Jun 17, 4:33 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks good.

    I was having trouble wording the section under keeper liability where I wanted to mention my complaint to the DVLA (and the DVLA confirming that CPP did not request the registered keeper data from them) - so not sure if it is okay?
    I would embed the DVLA's email into that section, to illustrate what you say, and quote Schedule 4 where it says that keeper data must be obtained 'via the Secretary of State' (i.e. via the DVLA only and not from any other source).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 25th Jun 17, 8:03 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Thanks! Will add that in now. I also took some decent photographs of the signage in the car park (tiny writing and 1/2 obscured by an overgrown bush) so hopefully that will help also.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Jun 17, 9:07 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Embed them into the word document, so it is an illustrated appeal (don't upload photos separately - make is easy for the Assessor, one document). Upload the appeal as a PDF, under 'OTHER' tonight, now just saying: 'this PDF is my appeal'.

    You are pushing it for time. POPLA codes last just over 30 days from rejection letter.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 27th Jun 17, 7:05 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Yep - I did embed them, saved as PDF with title "appeal". I couldn't leave the description blank so I just listed the main points and said the evidence was in the pdf. Just checked the progress now, and it says waiting for operator to provide evidence..
    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 11th Jul 17, 2:50 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Hello everyone,
    Liberty have replied at POPLA with 30pg evidence document which I need to respond to within the week.

    Here's a quick summary of the document:
    Section A - evidence checklist of ticket
    Section B - case summary and copy of T&C (copy of the ticket)
    Section C - photographs of my car and registered keeper details and liability trail
    Section D - original appeal times and evidence of notice of rejection of appeal (no mention of NTK)
    Section E - final signage plan with st georges and name of project surveyor and detail about parking lot
    Section F- photos of the signs (close-ups)

    Apart from commenting re no NTK mentioned and the close-ups of the signs not showing how they would be seen from driver's point of view - I don't really know what else to add..
    Any ideas would be much appreciated as always!
    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 4:16 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Apart from commenting re no NTK mentioned and the close-ups of the signs not showing how they would be seen from driver's point of view - I don't really know what else to add..
    You don't need to say a lot, just bullet points about the above, plus anything about any landowner contract or witness statement they have supplied (look at dates and signature).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 11th Jul 17, 6:48 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    I'm a bit confused re their final signage plan..
    Literally says

    Account manager - amaara parry
    Project surveyor - choose an item
    Signage supplier - none
    date signage plan created - 27/05/2015
    approved by - choose an item date - choose an item

    so it's not properly filled out is it??
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 6:59 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What? Don't understand it.

    Show us the pages you want us to look at (signage and landowner contract, e.g.) on imgur or Dropbox.

    You will have to remove the http as you can't yet post a working link.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 12th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    imgur.com/a/Kp75T

    sorry for not being clear. i was writing out what they had written in their signage contract - a lot of boxes were left empty. hopefully the imgur post above will explain..
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 17, 9:43 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    http://imgur.com/a/Kp75T

    I would say that looks like a document they've just thrown together last week...
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 12th Jul 17, 10:26 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Exactly! It makes no sense..
    In their evidence pack, they have essentially copied the ticket...my original appeal and their rejection of the appeal with popla information...photographs of the vehicle...and photographs of the signage. And then that random landowner contract. That's it.

    I have written out a draft (which if I understand correctly, should be emailed directly to POPLA as a pdf?).
    I have just 2 sections, one in response to the evidence provided where I have just stated that although they've shown evidence of my appeal to them and their response, they have not served an NTK and have provided no evidence re this and as such no keeper liability can apply.

    The second section is in response to the photographs provided where I have said the photographs of the vehicle do not show proof that any of their signs were visible from the parking space. And the photographs of the signage are close-ups and do not accurately represent how they were viewed from the driver's POV.
    I would like to comment on the landowner contract but I don't really know what to say..

    Apart from that, do you have any thoughts on anything else I can add?
    Thanks!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 17, 11:06 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would keep it short in bullet points. No need to word it in any special way, ''say what you see''!

    If that document is mean to be the 'landowner contract' it clearly isn't one.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 12th Jul 17, 11:14 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Ok - will do. Thanks!

    With respect to submitting it. Is it possible to save as a pdf and email (as I have included photographs)?
    Last edited by studiousowl; 12-07-2017 at 11:37 PM.
    • studiousowl
    • By studiousowl 31st Aug 17, 4:26 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    studiousowl
    Just an update: I won at POPLA!! Thank you all for all your help!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Aug 17, 4:29 PM
    • 49,992 Posts
    • 63,392 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ooh, great! On what basis did you win?

    Please copy the POPLA decision but break it into paragraphs first, and post it in 'POPLA DECISIONS' with a link to this thread, telling everyone which PPC you beat.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, 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

3,394Posts Today

7,654Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin