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
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 31st May 17, 7:20 PM
    • 21Posts
    • 13Thanks
    redwolve378
    PCN for Berry Head, Brixham
    • #1
    • 31st May 17, 7:20 PM
    PCN for Berry Head, Brixham 31st May 17 at 7:20 PM
    Hi guys,

    I received a PCN following a recent holiday we took in Torquay claiming that the reason was Parking Session Expired or Unpaid for the Berry Head carpark

    Following the advice in the NEWBIES thread at the posts from others I filled out my appeal to Premier Park online using the template provided challenging the PCN. I to date have not admitted to being the driver at the time.

    Within a couple of days I got an email back stating:

    Re: Parking Charge Notice *******

    We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal, on behalf of the driver, appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the vehicle.

    We note your comments and must refer you to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid Parking Charges. This is available to view online at:
    (link to legistlation.co.uk)

    We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by 6th June 2017. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

    If we do not receive this information by the date given, the registered keeper of the vehicle at the date of event will be held liable.

    If you would like to view our photographic evidence, please visit (link to PCN website)

    Please respond by return or by filling in the Transfer of Liability form on the reverse of the PCN and posting it to Premier Park, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG.


    Yours Sincerely,
    cid:image001.png@01D15F47.91CA8360

    The Appeals Team
    Premier Park Ltd

    I have done some reading and research (crossing to other forums also) as the next stage confuses me slightly. I found another 'victim' of a claim in Berry Head who has posted his findings and it was very impressive. With the help of others and previous appeals he compiled the response which can be found at forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t106358.html

    I have amended it slightly for my own response but was hoping some of the guys here who are more intelligent and practised in these things could have a look over it to see if there is anything that has changed since Sept 2016.

    Thanks guys.
Page 1
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 31st May 17, 7:24 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    • #2
    • 31st May 17, 7:24 PM
    response letter
    • #2
    • 31st May 17, 7:24 PM
    Here is my response (not sent) edited from the above pepipoo forum to suit my situation.


    Vehicle Registration Number: ******
    PCN Reference ****
    POPLACODE: *****
    Issued by Premier Park.

    I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park Limited (“Premier”) in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at Berry Head Car Park on 21 April 2017. I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

    I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

    1) Keeper Liability not established – The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the strict requirements of POFA 2012.
    2) Berry Head Car Park is not ‘relevant land’
    3) Premier does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
    4) No evidence that the car entered Berry Head Car Park
    5) No comparable legitimate interest nor clear prominent signage terms
    6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
    7) Lack of legible signage – no contract with the driver.

    1) Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012

    Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier’s’ Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

    • Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), (i)The Notice to Keeper did not specify the relevant land on which the ‘car was parked or the period of parking' to which it related. The PCN merely states the driver has become liable for a parking charge at Berry Head, Brixham (Berry Head is approximately 150 acres big). Where within Berry Head, was the vehicle allegedly parked? (ii)The Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2) (b), the Notice to Keeper did not 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.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2) (e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2) (f), the Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    • Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2) (h), the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2) (i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

    A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before iMail actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

    Consequently, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may allow my appeal.

    2) Berry Head Car Park is not ‘relevant land’

    Contrary to requirements of POFA 2012 Paragraph 3(1)©, Berry Head car park is not relevant land. Recent Freedom of Information requests from Torbay Council confirm that Berry Head car park is covered by the Borough of Torbay (Torbay Coast and Countryside trust) (Off Street Parking Places) Order 2013 byelaw, therefore POFA 2012 does not apply. If Premier disputes this, I require them to provide irrefutable evidence that this byelaw has been rescinded and in the correct manner by providing the following information:
    a) The exact date that the order was rescinded.
    b) Who requested it to be rescinded and the date the request was made.
    c) Where and when the proposal to rescind the order was advertised, in accordance with Torbay Council regulations.
    d) Who paid the legal and advertising costs for this order to be rescinded

    3) Premier does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.

    I question Premier’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Premier to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question Premier’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

    They do not own Berry Head or its car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles in the car park, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Premier is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that Premier are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge enormous car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

    In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

    “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 put Premier to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements and provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

    So, I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one – provides only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

    4) No evidence that the car entered Berry Head Car Park

    As keeper I cannot discount that the driver was in the vicinity of Berry Head Car Park as the photos show but cannot ascertain they entered it.
    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

    The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle in the vicinity of Berry Head car park and certainly do not indicate that the vehicle was parked within or even entered the car park. All I have seen as ‘evidence’ is a Notice with two photos of my vehicle on a public highway. This location is not within the car park and as proof I ask POPLA to consider the map provided in the evidence pack named ‘BHCP Boundary’ and the following Google Street View Map GSV link: (!!!!!!! link to google street map)

    Therefore, I require Premier to provide evidence of the times the vehicle was allegedly parked in Berry Head car park.

    5) No comparable legitimate interest nor clear prominent signage terms – the case is a simple economic transaction (re a quantified tariff) which can be differentiated from the 'entirely different' complex contract in ParkingEye-v-Beavis.

    The sum claimed by Premier does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified. This case is 'entirely different' complex contract in ParkingEye-v-Beavis.
    Having received the Notice in the post I had very little information (see point #1) so went and checked the signage and it seems that up to 21 minutes of parking would have cost £0.35 so the only recoverable sum under the POFA 2012 is the sum of the alleged 'outstanding' parking charge = £0.35 at the most. Premier has not told me these details, despite it being a prerequisite of Schedule 4 (see Point #1).

    The signs at Berry Head Car Park, state that Premier Park operates a ‘space maximisation scheme only’. This is untrue. I assume that they are trying to claim that the Beavis judgement applies to this car park when it does not. Riverside Chelmsford car park (the site where Beavis was 'fined') is a retail park where the turnover of customers is important so there is a two hour limit to maximise the use of the spaces. In the Berry Head Car Park motorists are allowed to park for as long as they like and there is no requirement for a turnover of spaces. It doesn't matter if every single space is occupied as long as they pay £5 per 24 hours.

    6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate

    Premier’s evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car in the vicinity of Berry Head Car Park on a public highway. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' when a vehicle is still on a public highway. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same claimed parking event.

    The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
    Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

    Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Premier to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of supposedly entering and leaving Berry Head Cap Park, it is vital that Premier produces evidence in response to these points.

    In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Premier to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle activating the system, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Premier to strict proof to the contrary.

    Further to this I also require Premier to provide evidence that there is planning permission for the ANPR cameras used in this notice. It is a criminal offence to obtain data using illegal equipment.

    7) Lack of legible signage – no contract with the driver.

    Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice, the entrance sign breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' the fact that the Berry Head Car Park is 24hr pay and display, which is unusual in rural Devon or ANPR recording is being made, is sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) could not be satisfied if a car entered Berry Head Car Park.
    On reviewing the signs it is clear that they are poorly designed and hard to fully read unless an exorbitant amount of time is taken. Unless the small print is read, there is no indication that Berry Head Car Park charges 24 hours a day which should be made prominent as such a charge is unusual in rural Devon and would not be expected. They are also poorly placed, with no sign reminding visitors’ that it’s a pay and display car park at the main pedestrian exit which heads towards Berry Head nature reserve and is the main reason people visit the area.
    I therefore require contemporary photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.
    I am also unhappy that no warning is given in this car park that ANPR is in use. BPA code of practice 21.1 states: You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    The signs do not mention ANPR and there is no reference of what the captured data will be used for and therefore the operator has failed to sufficiently advise the motorist what it uses ANPR cameras for. This deficiency alone has caused many recent cases to be dropped, please see POPLA case 6063135273.
    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

    Paragraph 68: 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.

    Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

    (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    I have good reason to believe that Premier’s signs did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that Premier would reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver.

    In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for the driver to conclude that Premier was one of the many private parking companies that choose not to use the provisions of POFA. The car park signage simply failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA

    Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed.

    Yours faithfully,
    • Redx
    • By Redx 31st May 17, 7:56 PM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 18,498 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 31st May 17, 7:56 PM
    • #3
    • 31st May 17, 7:56 PM
    that is a popla appeal , not a PPC appeal

    do you have a popla code from PP ?

    if not , you do nothing until they send you a popla code , you definitely do not reveal who was driving (hint - they are phishing for the drivers details)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 1st Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    • #4
    • 1st Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    • #4
    • 1st Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    Hi, thanks for getting back to me.
    That's where I'm getting confused. I filled out the online form, got the email reply but also received a First Reminder letter in the post.
    Some guidance to clarify my next course of action would be greatly appreciated. Should I start a POPLA appeal on their own site to get the reference number?
    Thank you for your help Redx.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jun 17, 11:28 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,475 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 1st Jun 17, 11:28 PM
    • #5
    • 1st Jun 17, 11:28 PM
    You can't do a POPLA appeal without a POPLA code.

    You say you appealed, so you should get an answer, a rejection letter maybe a month later (never mind the automatic 'reminder'). Have you had a rejection letter with a POPLA code on it somewhere, and actual reply to your appeal, not just an auto-response or acknowledgement?

    What d you mean by 'got the email reply'? An auto-response? When? No rejection letter yet?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 2nd Jun 17, 8:20 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    • #6
    • 2nd Jun 17, 8:20 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd Jun 17, 8:20 PM
    Hi.
    So, I got an initial PCN letter stating I needed to pay. I went online to PCNs website and filed in the info saying it was my vehicle and put the information that's in my first post referring to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
    A couple of days later I got the above email reply but also a second letter of First Reminder Notice. In neither of these was a POPLA number or details relating to it.
    This is where the confusion on my next actions lie and started a thread for advice. I know that I am missing something obvious but it's not clear to me.
    Do I wait for another letter or request a POPLA reference?

    Thanks.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 2nd Jun 17, 8:32 PM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 18,498 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 2nd Jun 17, 8:32 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Jun 17, 8:32 PM
    in theory you wait for a popla code in the actual rejection , the PPC has 35 days to process this according to the BPA CoP so you have not received this yet

    or you could appeal again and request a popla code if they dont cancel

    the reminders tend to try and trap you into revealing the driver and are usually ignored

    so sometimes the correct action is inaction (but dont let it lie for too long)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 2nd Jun 17, 10:51 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    • #8
    • 2nd Jun 17, 10:51 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Jun 17, 10:51 PM
    Thank you.
    The email said I have until 6th June but the First Reminder says 29 days to pay. I think I'll reply to the email requesting the POPLA reference or hit them with something else to prompt that?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jun 17, 12:58 AM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,475 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 3rd Jun 17, 12:58 AM
    • #9
    • 3rd Jun 17, 12:58 AM
    The email said I have until 6th June
    To do what? Were they asking who was driving? Ignore that.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 3rd Jun 17, 10:42 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    From their email response:

    We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by 6th June 2017. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

    I see now it's asking for the driver, so I'll ignore that.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 3rd Jun 17, 10:54 AM
    • 39,595 Posts
    • 79,193 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    From their email response:

    We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by 6th June 2017. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

    I see now it's asking for the driver, so I'll ignore that.
    Originally posted by redwolve378
    They are lying. They may request the driver's details, but there is no "must" about it. They are also lying about the service address. It can be anywhere in the world. It does not have to be a UK address.
    They are also lying about the keeper being liable. They may be liable, but there is no "will" be liable.

    Simply wait until you get a PoPLA code. If one hasn't arrived by day 35, complain to the BPA, then wait for the code.
    Do not respond to the scammers until you get the code.

    Once you have a PoPLA code you can do a PoPLA appeal. You can't do anything without the code, and any response by you in the mean time is dangerous because you may inadvertently give the scammers the driver's details.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 03-06-2017 at 10:57 AM.
    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
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 3rd Jun 17, 5:17 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    Great, I appreciate the advice Fruitcake. Now I can sit back and not bother with any of it until I get my next correspondence from them.

    I'll keep you all posted. Thanks guys.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 5th Jun 17, 1:32 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 78 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    As already said by other members Premier Park send 'phishing' emails and letters to try and scare you into paying up or tell them who the driver was. In a week or so you will receive an email rejecting your appeal and giving you a verification code to enable you appeal to POPLA, as well as offering a further period to pay at the reduced amount.

    You need to start researching other Berry Head threads and getting info together ready for your POPLA appeal, you will have 28 days to submit it from receiving your code.

    What was the reason given by PP for the alleged contravention, was it an overstay or non payment?

    By the way I would edit your original post by removing the last sentence on the fourth line.
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 5th Jun 17, 11:28 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    The reason was "expired or unpaid". I'm holding out until they get in touch again and see what they come up with. I will of course keep this thread going with info as it'll hopefully help others too.
    Thanks again guys.
    • redwolve378
    • By redwolve378 9th Jun 17, 8:14 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    redwolve378
    How do guys
    So, I now have my POPLA reference number. I'm going to send through post 2 above now if it's all OK?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 9th Jun 17, 8:56 PM
    • 39,595 Posts
    • 79,193 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I've only had a quick look, but your signage point is too short. There is a much better and longer one in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread. You will need to embed the images rather than link them.

    I would also put the byelaws point first, and make some mention of byelaws in the appeal title to make sure the assessor sees it.
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Jun 17, 9:32 PM
    • 13,573 Posts
    • 21,271 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Do a search on 'Berry Head' on 'Search this forum' on MSE and on PePiPoo (or use Google search) and you'll find a good number of other cases to help you develop a decent appeal.
    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.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 10th Jun 17, 12:59 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 78 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    How do guys
    So, I now have my POPLA reference number. I'm going to send through post 2 above now if it's all OK?
    Originally posted by redwolve378
    No need to rush, you have 28 days before your POPLA appeal has to be submitted.
    Time to do some research and construct a winning appeal.
    As already been said have a look at post #3 in the NEWBIES thread (2nd on down at top of the board) to get an idea of the POPLA appeals process. There is also an appeal template in there you could adapt for your appeal.

    'Berry Head' does have some particularly useful appeal points. I won a POPLA appeal for Berry Head last year, most people have been successful but some have lost.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 10th Jun 17, 1:14 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 78 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    The reason was "expired or unpaid". I'm holding out until they get in touch again and see what they come up with. I will of course keep this thread going with info as it'll hopefully help others too.
    Thanks again guys.
    Originally posted by redwolve378
    The PCN shows 2 photos, one on entry and one on exit and they have time stamps on them.
    What was the alleged duration of the parking time (time between entry and exit) and was a ticket paid for?

    It would be useful if you could put up a scan of the PCN on here, with all personal and identifying details (name, address, PCN number, VRN numbers) redacted or covered up.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 12th Jun 17, 1:31 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 78 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    The reason was "expired or unpaid". I'm holding out until they get in touch again and see what they come up with. I will of course keep this thread going with info as it'll hopefully help others too.
    Thanks again guys.
    Originally posted by redwolve378
    All they will come up with is another 'reminder' letter phishing for the drivers details or getting you to pay up.

    As I said in my previous post you now have a few weeks to put a convincing POPLA appeal together.

    Again, what were the timings for the parking period given on the PCN and how long was paid for. Grace periods could come into play here.
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

947Posts Today

7,044Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin