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
    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 7th Aug 17, 9:11 AM
    • 24Posts
    • 4Thanks
    greg2424
    Ncp anpr
    • #1
    • 7th Aug 17, 9:11 AM
    Ncp anpr 7th Aug 17 at 9:11 AM
    Hi Folks,

    Been reading through the sticky and just wanted to check that my correct course of action is to send the BCA template via e-mail to NCP.

    My vehicle was captured going in and out of an NCP car park in a timescale of 16 minutes.

    Based on the sticky, it seems I can just send this BCA template letter and leave it at that....?
    Last edited by greg2424; 06-09-2017 at 5:18 PM.
Page 2
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Sep 17, 9:18 AM
    • 14,635 Posts
    • 23,023 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    you really need to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 3 to help you in constructing a winning POPLA appeal. There are a number of ready written appeal points (long ones with all the technical and legal points being made for you) for you to copy and paste to form the backbone of your appeal.

    Use these (read each one to ensure it is appropriate to your case, but in 90%+ of the time they will be) and then add other points as appropriate.

    But I'd leave this one out:

    I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park not situated in any bays. I put NCP to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described.
    This was thrown out by the Supreme Court in the Beavis case. It will definitely not go in your favour at POPLA - and there's the danger that the assessor will spot it and knee-jerk into pressing the reject button (they have a ready made template response to handle 'disproportionate charges' with a final sentence which rejects the whole appeal). Don't go there!
    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.
    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 12th Sep 17, 2:05 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    you really need to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 3 to help you in constructing a winning POPLA appeal. There are a number of ready written appeal points (long ones with all the technical and legal points being made for you) for you to copy and paste to form the backbone of your appeal.

    Use these (read each one to ensure it is appropriate to your case, but in 90%+ of the time they will be) and then add other points as appropriate.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks, but is anyone able tell me what broad grounds my appeal falls under according to the POPLA thread? I also assume that when I am being referred to post #3, everyone actually means the post listing at #2? #3 seems to just focus on a failed appeal from 2012.

    Not Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL)
    PSDSU/Cancelled
    Authority
    ANPR
    Signage
    Mitigating Circumstances
    Equality Act
    Relevant Land

    I am just struggling with what the relevant laws are to back up my case and under what category my appeal falls under. As I mentioned, there are 2,700 posts on the POPLA thread and I'm not sure which section I should focus on based on my appeal letter I posted on here a little earlier:

    Poor Signage and No Offense committed. At the end of the day, how can it be refuted by POPLA that the driver was in the car park using the on-site carwash. The signage is secondary, but my photos clearly detail just one sign that show ANPR, and that was obscured by a tall vehicle parked in front of it.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Sep 17, 2:11 PM
    • 3,652 Posts
    • 1,875 Thanks
    KeithP
    I also assume that when I am being referred to post #3, everyone actually means the post listing at #2? #3 seems to just focus on a failed appeal from 2012.
    Originally posted by greg2424
    I don't know what you are reading but the first line of post#3 of the Newbies thread is:
    SECOND STAGE APPEAL - POPLA OR IAS

    and is followed by links to numerous appeal points - just pick those appropriate to your case.

    Ah... I now see you are looking at the POPLA Decisions thread.
    Last edited by KeithP; 12-09-2017 at 2:16 PM.
    .
    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 13th Sep 17, 8:48 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    OK, another stab at it. Again, I have enclosed a number of pictures where Terms & Conditions are a "dot" to the driver line of sight. I have also now added a map of the probable route of the driver through the car park and the camera angles. If this one reads well, I will provide a PDF'ed, redacted version before it goes for one final check. Thanks again for all the input!

    P.S. Yes I was looking at the POPLA Decisions thread, not the Newbie one !! Sorry about that!

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: Parking Charge Reference number [xxxxxxx]! Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxxx]

    I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from NCP.

    My appeal to NCP was rejected and they gave me POPLA code [xxxxxxxxx].

    The basis of my appeal is: Unclear/Obscured Signage and that No Offense was committed
    I am the keeper of the vehicle with the above registration, the driver was not able to observe the one “ANPR” sign located on the CL side entrance of the car park due to a tall vehicle obscuring the signage. As you will note from the below, the entrance to the car park has no height restrictions in place which means that vehicles of any size can enter the car park and spaces are available directly in front of the one sign from that side of the car park (pictures not taken at the time of the alleged offense). It is also noteworthy that the “main” entrance sign makes no mention of the ANPR system in legible or reasonable lettering. The only mention is small text underneath the camera icon which itself is small from an entering drivers “point of view”. It cannot be assumed that either the camera or the text underneath it can be observed in a vehicle travelling at 15-20 miles per hour.

    PHOTOS

    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

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. 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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    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. They 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 operators 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:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''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:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''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:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    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.

    Moving onto the second part of the appeal, the vehicle was not actually parked in a space but instead waiting to use the on-site car wash (pictured below). The driver decided to abandon the carwash after 15 minutes and opted for a different one located elsewhere across town. As the driver continued the route through the car park to the TS exit, it is clear from the photos I recently took below that show multiple vantage points of what the driver would have seen there are no indications throughout the car park that ANPR is being used.

    PHOTOS

    I have enclosed a map of the area for you to review the camera angles, the route the car took, the position of the carwash and the entry/exit points.

    MAP HERE

    Based on the above appeal and evidence I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and that the charge is dismissed.

    Yours sincerely,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 17, 9:14 AM
    • 50,166 Posts
    • 63,545 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need as well, the points about:

    - no landowner authority - template

    - appellant not shown to be the individual liable - template

    - Relevant Land (if this was a railway car park?)

    - Your point below (but it needs a heading):

    'The vehicle was not parked, just waiting for the car wash'

    Moving onto the second part of the appeal, the vehicle was not actually parked in a space but instead waiting to use the on-site car wash (pictured below). The driver decided to abandon the carwash after 15 minutes and opted for a different one located elsewhere across town. As the driver continued the route through the car park to the TS exit, it is clear from the photos I recently took below that show multiple vantage points of what the driver would have seen there are no indications throughout the car park that ANPR is being used.

    PHOTOS

    I have enclosed a map of the area for you to review the camera angles, the route the car took, the position of the carwash and the entry/exit points.

    MAP HERE
    and

    - no keeper liability: state why the NCP NTK is not compliant and why you are not liable according to their wording about keepers avoiding liability. NCP NTKs in fact have a serious flaw about the information in 'liability' (or not), worth pointing out to POPLA:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73014427#post73014427


    Whilst NCP have correctly stated the 28 days timeline, the actual wording about how a keeper is liable/not liable, is seriously flawed and does not match the prescribed warning in 9(2)f of schedule 4, which is silent on 'making representations'.

    This NTK wrongly tells the keeper that, under the POFA Sch 4, they will be liable 'unless they comply with the above' which is a list of three options. It includes ''making a representation'' as one of the three choices. So, the keeper just has to ''comply'' by making an appeal, and going by the instructions in that letter, they can reasonably understand they are then not liable.

    NCP have muddled one 28 day term (appeal) with a completely different thing (the POFA liability wording) and in doing so, prejudice the registered keeper's understanding about liability. There can be no other interpretation of that NTK than to believe that a keeper can ''comply'' by ''making representations'' within 28 days and therefore, they will then not be liable. Not just semantics; that's what the NTK says, loud and clear. And wrong.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-09-2017 at 7:01 PM.
    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.

    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 13th Sep 17, 6:54 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    Thank you so much for this extra advice!

    - no landowner authority - template - added

    - appellant not shown to be the individual liable - template - I've gone through the newbie thread and I'm not sure this applies to me as 1) It seems specific to PE whereas mine is NCP, and 2) I don't think I have the "blank space" referred to on the linked thread

    - Relevant Land (if this was a railway car park?) - Not a railway carpark, assume this is not a pertinent part of my appeal

    - Your point below (but it needs a heading):

    'The vehicle was not parked, just waiting for the car wash' - Done

    You also mentioned about the language in the NTK, but I have cross referenced and the letter I have is exactly the same wording as this persons' NTK, so I think it cannot be referred to? http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5702376&highlight=ncp+ntk#9

    Thanks again, seems like we're making progress
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 17, 7:06 PM
    • 50,166 Posts
    • 63,545 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Look what I just added to Moochover's thread! The same thing I told you. Moochover hadn't quoted the entire section from his/her NTK, so at first I thought the wording was compliant, but NCP ones say too much underneath that!

    I have also amended the link I provided earlier in my reply to you above, which wasn't working. It is now working as a link, and shows you what to state about an NCP NTK, assuming yours does have the flaw in the wording.
    - appellant not shown to be the individual liable - template - I've gone through the newbie thread and I'm not sure this applies to me
    Yes it does, it's just saying they haven't shown who was driving. You might need to tweak the words but generally people use that template all the time, right under their point about NTKs not being compliant/no keeper liability.
    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.

    • mucker2308
    • By mucker2308 13th Sep 17, 7:17 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    mucker2308
    Help needed please!
    Hi,

    first of all sorry as I know this post is in the wrong place, I could not find to start a new thread!

    So we have just received a rejected appeal from Premier Parking, see below, this is what i sent them on an email for the both of us.

    I am writing regarding a recent ticket myself and my mother in law have both received on the same day minutes apart.

    We stayed in a property on holiday so we were not familiar with the area and we were advised it was fine to park outside the house by the owner.
    When we arrived there, the house front was on a road with 2 yellow lines and was very busy, we then decided to use the car park at the back of the property which backs onto it. My mother in law is disabled so first of all we needed a good point for her to get out the car, we then unloaded our cars with the luggage as quick as we could and then proceeded to a different car park for a week stay.

    We thought we were ok to be in the car park to access the property we were staying in and as we didn't park up in a space as there was also none available, we didn't think a ticket was necessary otherwise one would have been purchased.

    My self and my mother in law/father in law have both received a ticket and as you can imagine when receiving the tickets we were gobsmacked, I am writing to contest the parking charge.

    My mother in law/father in law are .....

    Sooo 1. I definitely regret not finding this forum before sending them this email, 2. I dont know what to do can someone please help!

    thank you
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Sep 17, 8:15 PM
    • 3,652 Posts
    • 1,875 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hi,

    first of all sorry as I know this post is in the wrong place, I could not find to start a new thread!
    Originally posted by mucker2308
    Mucker, you have been on MSE for over six years and have started two threads before.

    How-come you have now 'forgotten'?

    Go back to the board index and hit the 'new thread' button.

    That will prompt someone to tell you to read the thread entitled:
    **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW?
    **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou!
    Last edited by KeithP; 13-09-2017 at 8:21 PM.
    .
    • mucker2308
    • By mucker2308 13th Sep 17, 8:56 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    mucker2308
    KeithP, I still cannot find a new thread icon on the forum, its been a while since I have been on here, thanks anyway I will keep searching
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 17, 9:00 PM
    • 50,166 Posts
    • 63,545 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's at the top of the forum thread list, as per all MSE forum boards. Every board here has the new thread button at the top of the list of threads, where the sticky threads are at the top. The first page.

    My signature tells you how to use the breadcrumb trail, top of the page, to get back. ONE CLICK and you are looking at the first page.

    Even if you start from scratch with all the forum boards listed, click on any of them and the first page has 'NEW THREAD' top left. Every board is the same.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-09-2017 at 9:03 PM.
    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Sep 17, 9:16 PM
    • 14,635 Posts
    • 23,023 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I really do despair at some of these. I'm sure it's getting much worse.
    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.
    • mucker2308
    • By mucker2308 13th Sep 17, 9:20 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    mucker2308
    thank you so much! I have now foudn this, thanks again
    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 14th Sep 17, 8:48 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    Look what I just added to Moochover's thread! The same thing I told you. Moochover hadn't quoted the entire section from his/her NTK, so at first I thought the wording was compliant, but NCP ones say too much underneath that!

    I have also amended the link I provided earlier in my reply to you above, which wasn't working. It is now working as a link, and shows you what to state about an NCP NTK, assuming yours does have the flaw in the wording.

    Yes it does, it's just saying they haven't shown who was driving. You might need to tweak the words but generally people use that template all the time, right under their point about NTKs not being compliant/no keeper liability.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks again!! For clarity, I have linked the actual letter in the link below (hopefully it works) only showing the relevant passage of text. From what I can tell, the wording in my letter does not invite the argument that the wording is not compliant or the NKL template text shown here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287643&postcount=2345

    If I am reading the thread correctly, it seems that this is only for Window tickets, and in the case of NTK's it only applies if the letter was worded in a certain way, or not. My letter below doesn't seem to have the required characteristics to argue these points.....?

    Link to my letter from NCP:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CBpg0LyukbTmI2aTJ1WkhrR1k
    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 19th Sep 17, 10:23 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    Hi there, I only have until Friday to get my stuff together, so any further feedback on the link below would be much appreciated.

    Do I need to advise NCP that I'm going to POPLA? I'm not sure whether they need to be informed so they know an appeal is in the pipeline

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CBpg0LyukbQllkXzBLcG00dkU
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Sep 17, 10:30 PM
    • 14,635 Posts
    • 23,023 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Do I need to advise NCP that I'm going to POPLA? I'm not sure whether they need to be informed so they know an appeal is in the pipeline
    Nope, they'll get a copy sent to them by POPLA.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Sep 17, 12:57 AM
    • 50,166 Posts
    • 63,545 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That NCP letter doesn't contain the same flaw, which is annoying. Maybe they've been reading the forums and benefitting from our advice on what constitutes a valid NTK.
    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.

    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 20th Sep 17, 8:00 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    That NCP letter doesn't contain the same flaw, which is annoying. Maybe they've been reading the forums and benefitting from our advice on what constitutes a valid NTK.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yep, very much so..... So I opted to leave the parts you mentioned out based on the fact that the letter is worded the way it is..... Assuming it looks good enough, I will send today or tomorrow. Any issues with my poorly drawn map and small pictures? Should I note at the bottom that better copies are available on request?

    Anything else missing?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Sep 17, 9:21 AM
    • 14,635 Posts
    • 23,023 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Any issues with my poorly drawn map and small pictures? Should I note at the bottom that better copies are available on request?
    POPLA won't come back and request anything. What you submit as evidence in your appeal is it; no second go. So if you do have a better map that makes your route and camera angles clearer, then send that in.

    Just going back to your appeal point that ANPR cameras weren't obvious, your bottom left-hand photo clearly shows a camera high up on a pole with anti-vandal spikes. It may or may not have been an ANPR camera, but leaving that photo in does have the potential to water down your assertion. I'd leave it out.
    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.
    • greg2424
    • By greg2424 20th Sep 17, 10:29 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    greg2424
    POPLA won't come back and request anything. What you submit as evidence in your appeal is it; no second go. So if you do have a better map that makes your route and camera angles clearer, then send that in.

    Just going back to your appeal point that ANPR cameras weren't obvious, your bottom left-hand photo clearly shows a camera high up on a pole with anti-vandal spikes. It may or may not have been an ANPR camera, but leaving that photo in does have the potential to water down your assertion. I'd leave it out.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Good spot!! OK, I made the map better and removed the picture.....

    Last version before sending....

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CBpg0LyukbUHRiNHk5R0VMekE
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

1,635Posts Today

7,782Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @KCMurdarasi: @MartinSLewis Only 2 fluently, but I can struggle by in another 5 or so. And ask the way to the toilet in about 10 - you d?

  • Today's twitter poll: How many languages do you speak (inc Eng) with reasonable fluency (eg can have decent phone chat solely in that lang)

  • RT @iiSteveJonesii: @MartinSLewis After watching you talk this morning about me burning £300 I got on a comparison site tonight & sure enou?

  • Follow Martin