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
    • CWoo
    • By CWoo 4th Sep 17, 2:10 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 2Thanks
    CWoo
    Wy Parking and PCS
    • #1
    • 4th Sep 17, 2:10 PM
    Wy Parking and PCS 4th Sep 17 at 2:10 PM
    Hi Everyone,

    I've read the Newbies section and have started the fight against a PCN by following advice and sending out the appropriate template.

    I have since received a NTK from PCS asking for £120 on the 31st of last month, the letter states it was sent on the 25th.

    There was no accompanying evidence which I fairly certain I read in Schedule 4 section 8 subsection 7 is required. Am I understanding that right?

    The next day I then received my rejection email for my vehicles ticket being expired which had accompanying images of the car and the car park (it's that old knocked down mill/ruined building that been half converted) with a close up picture of a sign. no signs evident in any of the other photos though.

    I can now apparently pay £54 until the 15th going up to 90 apparently if I appeal to POPLA it is automatically 90

    Finally they Mention the Ombudsman and then go on to say that they have 'Chosen not to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service' and that they only really accept POPLA.

    Sorry it's easy to get overwhelmed with this stuff.
    I guess what I really want to know is;
    Should I just POPLA now or is there anything I have mentioned that I may be able to kick up a fuss about to BPA, PCS and WY?

    Thank for reading,

    CWoo.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Sep 17, 10:49 PM
    • 50,012 Posts
    • 63,416 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 4th Sep 17, 10:49 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Sep 17, 10:49 PM
    Should I just POPLA now
    Yes.

    To hold a keeper liable, the NTK needs to accompanying evidence but does have to have the wording about keeper liability etc., as set out in para 8 of Sch4, and must have arrived between day 29 and day 56 as well as getting the wording right.

    or is there anything I have mentioned that I may be able to kick up a fuss about to BPA, PCS and WY?
    Yep, the fact that the NTK is for a higher sum than the PCN, and above the BPA CoP ceiling, when it should 'repeat the information in the PCN' including the sum of the unpaid parking charges = should say £90.

    You can't kick up a fuss with the BPA because they won't care, but it is ammo for POPLA. Show us your draft POPLA appeal based on similar ones you read on the forum and using the template POPLA appeal points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.
    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.

    • CWoo
    • By CWoo 12th Sep 17, 4:40 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    CWoo
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 4:40 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 17, 4:40 PM
    This has mostly been cobbled together from various other appeals and the templates kindly provided on the Newbie Page. Still proof reading, sorry it's been so long.

    POPLA Ref :-
    Parking PCN no: -
    A notice to keeper was issued on the 25th August 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of vehicle registration ------- on 31st August 2017 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ in Bradford. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the reasons outline below.

    1) No Keeper Liability, PCS Not using POFA
    2) Amount demanded is a penalty
    3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    4) Misleading and unclear signage
    5) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
    6) Photo evidence appears doctored

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

    This operator has chosen not to utilise the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue keeper liability and as such has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4. As a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or if the document omits any of the prescribed wording then keeper liability simply does not apply.

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

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

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

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8**.’
    **Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 8: (2) The notice must—
    (c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);

    This operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant NTK, they have they chosen to ignore the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, and have consequently failed to meet any conditions for keeper liability. Clearly, I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents have not been properly issued.

    The Non PoFA compliant NTK;
    imgur.com/a/JGOnx

    2) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample.


    3) 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.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 of which there is none.

    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 because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    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) The signs in this car park are not clear, prominent or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient or indeed no 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:

    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:

    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), other parking charges that have been demanded i.e the initial demand of £120, do not appear anywhere on site. 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:

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

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

    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:

    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 that is already camouflaging the sign amongst graffiti. 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:

    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.

    Photos of the site in question from the position where the car was parked and then of the foot traffic entryway:

    imgur.com/a/RTy3M



    5) 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 (indeed it looks as though no one particularly has any form of interest in the land as it appears to be a ruined building) 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

    6) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps. Examination of the photographs, the details (time and date) are added as an overlay on the bottom of the photos. It looks as though it may even have been edited in using Microsoft paint. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    I would challenge WY Parking to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to gather the evidence provided in these photos (there are much more sophisticated ways of getting hardcoding photo data).

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • CWoo
    • By CWoo 12th Sep 17, 4:44 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    CWoo
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 4:44 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Sep 17, 4:44 PM
    I also received a reply from my email complaint to the BPA saying that PCS don't have to be POFA compliant with their NTK. That surely means that there can in no way be keeper liability and therefore the charge should be cancelled right?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 17, 12:17 AM
    • 50,012 Posts
    • 63,416 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 13th Sep 17, 12:17 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Sep 17, 12:17 AM
    I also received a reply from my email complaint to the BPA saying that PCS don't have to be POFA compliant with their NTK. That surely means that there can in no way be keeper liability and therefore the charge should be cancelled right?
    Originally posted by CWoo
    Well yes, they don't have to be POFA compliant, but it doesn't make the PCN void or anything, it just makes it one that POPLA would only uphold if the driver was admitted/implied or otherwise identified.

    So, yes, it should be cancelled but you will need to spell out more to POPLA, which parts the NTK fails to 'repeat' from the PCN. And I would also embed into your word document, a copy of the BPA's email reply which supports your statement that this is a non-POFA NTK becasue the BPA have said PCS don't have to use the POFA (but of course, they do, if they are to recover money from the keeper).
    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.

    • CWoo
    • By CWoo 13th Sep 17, 9:29 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    CWoo
    • #6
    • 13th Sep 17, 9:29 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Sep 17, 9:29 AM
    Coupon, you are a saint.
    • CWoo
    • By CWoo 13th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    CWoo
    • #7
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    This is the area with the most change. I still feel like it's not as hard hitting as it should be.


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

    This operator has chosen not to utilise the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue keeper liability and as such has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4. As a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or if the document omits any of the prescribed wording then keeper liability simply does not apply.

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

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

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

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8**.’
    **Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 8: (2) The notice must—
    (c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);

    The NTK served does not state either the reduced price of £54 or the original £90 charge as was stipulated by the signage and original PCN.

    ***Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 8:
    (7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.

    No evidence accompanied this Notice


    This operator has evidently failed to supply a compliant NTK, they have chosen to ignore the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, and have consequently failed to meet any conditions for keeper liability. Clearly, I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents have not been properly issued.

    The Non PoFA compliant NTK;
    imgur.com/a/JGOnx

    Upon complaining as to the contents of said NTK to the BPA I received this reply;
    (Copy of reply included on last page)

    “Dear *** ************,

    Thank you for your reply.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) is a piece of legislation introduced to provide Keeper Liability. This means if the Operator does not know the name and address of the driver they can hold the keeper liable under this legislation. To do this, they will need to meet the requirements contained within POFA.

    It is not mandatory that an operator uses POFA when issuing a parking charge notice. There is no legal requirement to do so as advised by the parking operator. It is at the discretion of the individual parking company as to whether they choose to utilise use POFA (2012).

    If no mention of POFA (2012) is made on the parking charge notice the strict timescales as advised in Schedule 4 are not therefore applicable.

    As advised in our previous email, in some instances, private parking operators may utilise the services of a third party company to assist them in the issuing of Notices, and when this is the case, additional costs may be added.

    As there has not been a breach of the Code in this instance, we are unable to assist you further.

    Yours Sincerely,

    T****** B*******”



    This indicates that the BPA are aware no Keeper Liability is possible as they are aware that PCS are not operating (at least in this case) under PoFA 2012.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 13th Sep 17, 10:44 AM
    • 10,196 Posts
    • 9,328 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #8
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:44 AM
    • #8
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:44 AM
    I have missed the point as to why the PPC is not using a POFA compliant NtK. Can you explain? Just how is it non-compliant?

    Also, what was the date of contravention?

    And I don't understand this seeming contradiction.

    I have since received a NTK from PCS asking for £120 on the 31st of last month, the letter states it was sent on the 25th.

    I can now apparently pay £54 until the 15th going up to 90 apparently if I appeal to POPLA it is automatically 90
    Last edited by Guys Dad; 13-09-2017 at 10:46 AM.
    • CWoo
    • By CWoo 13th Sep 17, 2:29 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    CWoo
    • #9
    • 13th Sep 17, 2:29 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Sep 17, 2:29 PM
    The Notice to Keeper I received only stated "Parking Charge Notice - £120".

    I had sent an appeal on day 26 (before the notice arrived) and in their refusal of the appeal they then stated that I could pay £54 or £90 if I was late or used POPLA.

    The original PCN was for 54 - 90 like the appeal refusal said. The NTK was for much more than this.

    So it's not PoFA compliant right? (actually asking as I keep getting in a muddle) Because The NTK is supposed to repeat the same information from the PCN.



    The original PCN was issued on the 23rd of August.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Sep 17, 4:54 PM
    • 497 Posts
    • 591 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, the NtK Should repeat the inforamtion on the NtD.
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

23Posts Today

3,671Users online

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

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

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

  • Follow Martin