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
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 10th Aug 17, 12:08 PM
    • 533Posts
    • 119Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    Euro Car Park Invoice
    • #1
    • 10th Aug 17, 12:08 PM
    Euro Car Park Invoice 10th Aug 17 at 12:08 PM
    I am sorry I don't seem to be able to work out which template letter I need to send for a parking invoice...


    Stopped in a Shell garage to fill up then parked to make a call they have now sent letter trying to sting me for 100


    I have been to the sticky and am a bit confused as to which I send them


    Thanks in Advance
Page 2
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 5th Sep 17, 9:31 AM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    Ok I have re-read newbies and searched and this http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5678881&highlight=popla+appeal+eu ro seems to be the exact same as our situation so am I allowed to copy and paste for my benefit? and is both posts to be included?


    I know I need to change details to ours


    Thanks in advance
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Sep 17, 10:24 AM
    • 14,641 Posts
    • 23,036 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    am I allowed to copy and paste for my benefit?
    Of course, why not? We encourage the use of recent winning appeals against the same operator. Just make sure - via a thorough proof read - that it all relates to your circumstances.

    and is both posts to be included?
    No idea what you are asking here.
    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.
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 5th Sep 17, 11:12 AM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    Of course, why not? We encourage the use of recent winning appeals against the same operator. Just make sure - via a thorough proof read - that it all relates to your circumstances.


    No idea what you are asking here.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas


    Thank you I am just not sure still of the elements that suggest you add links or am I missing something
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    • 14,641 Posts
    • 23,036 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thank you I am just not sure still of the elements that suggest you add links or am I missing something
    Originally posted by AMBERSHADOW
    You embed images or web links to information that support your appeal points. If you're using a previously successful appeal to copy and paste from then there may be some appropriate links already there -but do make sure you read those links to ensure they apply to your case.

    If you don't know how to embed or link any new pieces of information you wish to submit, then can you find a friend who is more computer savvy to help you with the technical end of this? It's very difficult to try explaining it here.
    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.
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 5th Sep 17, 2:27 PM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    You embed images or web links to information that support your appeal points. If you're using a previously successful appeal to copy and paste from then there may be some appropriate links already there -but do make sure you read those links to ensure they apply to your case.

    If you don't know how to embed or link any new pieces of information you wish to submit, then can you find a friend who is more computer savvy to help you with the technical end of this? It's very difficult to try explaining it here.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas


    Thank you very much for your help
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 5th Sep 17, 4:39 PM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    You embed images or web links to information that support your appeal points. If you're using a previously successful appeal to copy and paste from then there may be some appropriate links already there -but do make sure you read those links to ensure they apply to your case.

    If you don't know how to embed or link any new pieces of information you wish to submit, then can you find a friend who is more computer savvy to help you with the technical end of this? It's very difficult to try explaining it here.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas


    Lol there is no links and I have no idea where I get the links ..


    I am so sorry to be so thick.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 6:38 PM
    • 50,189 Posts
    • 63,581 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The NEWBIES thread post #3 has the POPLA template wording, which includes photos/links.
    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.

    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 6th Sep 17, 9:27 AM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    The NEWBIES thread post #3 has the POPLA template wording, which includes photos/links.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad


    Thank you very much
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 6th Sep 17, 10:20 AM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    I cant seem to post my appeal
    POPLA Ref .


    EURO CAR PARKS Parking PCN no .

    A notice to keeper was issued on 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at the Shell Petrol Station Gatwick Airport North.

    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1. SIGNAGE
    2. BPA CODE OF PRACTICE,NON COMPLIANCE TO GUIDELINES
    3. 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.
    4. LAND OWNER AUTHORITY
    5. OBSERVATION POINTS
    6. GRACE PERIOD
    7. NO EVIDENCE OF PERIOD PARKED
    8. THE ANPR SYSTEM IS NEITHER RELIABLE NOR ACCURATE.





    1. SIGNAGE

    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.

    These signs are unremarkable, concealed from the road by much more prominent flag/banner adverts which are 3 times the height of a car and would certainly completely obscure any sign, especially as Euro Car Park Signs are generally yellow which is the same colour as the shell signs, so no driver would look twice at a yellow sign behind some flags in a Shell petrol garage.









    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.

    2. BPA CODE OF PRACTICE - NON-COMPLIANCE TO GUIDELINES

    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 number plate. They do they clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.



    3.
    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 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 cannot.

    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.''





    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 merely put some 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 (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a 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 I believe 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.
    5. OBSERVATION POINTS
    I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."

    6.GRACE PERIOD

    As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged contract.


    The total time spent by the car past the point of ANPR control is NOT the same as the period parked.It is also true that waiting in a queue for a petrol pump to become free,filling up your vehicle,using the toilet,browsing the shop and paying for goods is time included and recorded on the ANPR and not actual time a vehicle is parked in the separate car park in the spaces provided.

    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 6th Sep 17, 10:22 AM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    7.NO EVIDENCE OF PERIOD PARKED.

    The Notice to keeper clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ECP are not able to definitively state the period of parking. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. The alleged overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for the period stated.

    8.THE ANPR SYSTEM IS NEITHER RELIABLE NOR ACCURATE.

    The ECP evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. To capture a vehicle entering Shell Gatwick car park and actually crossing the boundary into the land in question, it would appear that the only conceivable location for a camera would be directly across the road from the entrance therefore outside the car park and taken from public land.

    In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.

    Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

    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 ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that ECP produces evidence in response to these points.

    In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. 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 photo images, I put ECP to strict proof to the contrary.
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 6th Sep 17, 10:23 AM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    If someone could check this will be ok


    thanks
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 6th Sep 17, 10:36 AM
    • 3,214 Posts
    • 3,251 Thanks
    DoaM
    Have you simply done a cut/paste? Or have you tweaked it yet to suit YOUR specific situation? Are ALL the points raised applicable to your case?

    (No point anyone checking it until you've confirmed the above).
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Sep 17, 10:50 AM
    • 7,011 Posts
    • 6,084 Thanks
    The Deep
    The set aside hearing and the breach hearing are two different events.


    It could well be that the victim would have paid the charge at the lower rate had he/she been aware of it. They were not, so, for the third time, why do so many on here stress that to obtain a set aside you need to put forward an argument that the PCN was issued without good reason? Post 44 leads me to think that this is not the case.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 6th Sep 17, 10:55 AM
    • 3,214 Posts
    • 3,251 Thanks
    DoaM
    You've replied on the wrong thread TD.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 6th Sep 17, 1:33 PM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    I've had to go out to access this my IP seems to have been banned
    • AMBERSHADOW
    • By AMBERSHADOW 6th Sep 17, 1:35 PM
    • 533 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    AMBERSHADOW
    Have you simply done a cut/paste? Or have you tweaked it yet to suit YOUR specific situation? Are ALL the points raised applicable to your case?

    (No point anyone checking it until you've confirmed the above).
    Originally posted by DoaM
    It's the same circumstances as us I can't access the forum on my pc the admin banned my ip
    I'm waiting for the to sort it but I don't have much time to get appeal in

    And on the popla site do I choose number 4 keeper?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Sep 17, 3:33 PM
    • 15,546 Posts
    • 19,637 Thanks
    Redx
    there is a post on here saying people who copy and paste from word or outlook are getting their own IP addresses banned , maybe its that ?

    save to notepad or wordpad first, then copy/paste is the solution there

    on the POPLA site you choose OTHER , like the NEWBIES sticky thread tells you to (please read it again)

    the appeal is uploaded as a pdf attachment

    all explained in parking pranksters blog 2 years ago (linked in that NEWBIES thread)

    so more research required please, its all here if you look
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 12:59 AM
    • 50,189 Posts
    • 63,581 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    there is a post on here saying people who copy and paste from word or outlook are getting their own IP addresses banned , maybe its that ?
    Originally posted by Redx
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5706338

    HTH
    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

4,270Posts Today

9,487Users online

Martin's Twitter