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
    • Andrewuk
    • By Andrewuk 25th Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Andrewuk
    Tower Road Newquay Popla
    • #1
    • 25th Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    Tower Road Newquay Popla 25th Sep 17 at 7:23 PM
    Hello
    I have done the research and got to Popla stage. Apparently I "overstayed" by 11 minutes so I am appealing on the grace period bases. Could someone please have a look if what I'm planning to send is all correct. It's mainly copied and pasted from other posts.

    Thanks

    Dear POPLA adjudicator,

    POPLA Reference XXXXXXX
    Incident date XXXXXXX
    Car registration XXXXXXX
    PCN Number XXXXXXX
    Operator Name PARKINGEYE

    I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the TowerRoad, Newquay car park on **/07/2017.

    To protect the driver, they have not been named.

    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
    1. Insufficient grace period
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. Inadequate signage.
    1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

    This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere 11 minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.

    The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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."

    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

    ‘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.”’

    In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
    For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

    It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 11 minutes.

    ParkingEye have failed to inform me of the amount of time spent prior to the driver purchasing the ticket and the time spent after the paid for period ended. I object to the unclear information in the PCN and reserve the right to comment when PE finally show the timings transparently.

    By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

    In this case there was nothing on the signs at the entrance or anywhere seen, that informed the driver that the timing could possibly start at the point of entry. The driver had no idea; nor does the Pay and Display machine give people any information to suggest that the time on the printed ticket is actually wrong and misleading. Surely this is a misleading business practice, any reasonable driver would expect the time to start when the ticket is printed (which is the point that the contract is effected) and rely upon their hour expiring when the receipt says - anything else is perverse and a twisted interpretation of contract law.
    It must be noted that upon leaving the car park there were delays caused by pedestrians with surf boards and also turning/parking cars. The driver also had to give way to those cars newly arriving as the car park route narrows as you pass parked cars on both sides, then we had to queue for a couple of minutes at the exit until we could rejoin the main road (which is extremely busy, being the route to Fistral Beach).

    It is noted that the 'exit' ANPR camera records the VRN only when at the very front/actually exiting onto the road, despite the fact this is a main road where a car cannot possibly turn straight out immediately even if there is no queue (which there was).

    It is clear from the above that ParkingEye have failed to allow the mandatory MINIMUM Grace Period set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Adequate time must be allowed and this would differ from site to site, allowing for the issues I have mentioned above which are specific to a busy beach car park adjacent to a main road, where a car can't just leave within seconds without ploughing into pedestrians or other cars!
    2. 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


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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    ''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.''

    ''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.

    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.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 25th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    • 16,922 Posts
    • 21,025 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 25th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    • #2
    • 25th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    glad to see you have done the research and compiled the above, which all seems ok to me (but wait for other critique before saving as a pdf and uploading to POPLA by choosing OTHER)
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Sep 17, 9:26 PM
    • 15,926 Posts
    • 24,689 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 25th Sep 17, 9:26 PM
    • #3
    • 25th Sep 17, 9:26 PM
    Grace Periods should be enough here - but also leave all other points in. I've read through that section and all looks good.

    @OP - if you're up for this, why not complain to the DVLA (David Dunford) and copy to the BPA, that it is in the public domain that numerous PE cases are clearly showing they are ignoring the motorists' entitlement to the full canopy of periods of grace at Tower Road and are mercilessly pursuing all and sundry in the hope that naivety and ignorance will see payments flowing their way, to the detriment of the consumer.

    Complaints to the BPA and DVLA can be emailed to:

    aos@britishparking.co.uk

    or (if posting)

    British Parking Association
    Stuart House
    41-43 Perrymount Road
    Haywards Heath
    West Sussex
    RH16 3BN

    and DVLA:

    FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

    david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 25-09-2017 at 9:29 PM.
    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 25th Sep 17, 10:01 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 25th Sep 17, 10:01 PM
    • #4
    • 25th Sep 17, 10:01 PM
    Also ask Mr Dunford why over two years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf

    and yet the BPA has swept that under the carpet and has not updated the BPA CoP as was decided two years ago. Since then, ParkingEye have become worse and decided that there is no 'observation period' to read signs any more and somehow car drivers have to be psychic that they are timed from driving over the threshold. Never mind that the BPA CoP defines two grace periods either side of paid-for time, and Kelvin Reynolds wrote a BPA article about the fact the two periods are separate.
    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.

    • Andrewuk
    • By Andrewuk 30th Sep 17, 8:28 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Andrewuk
    • #5
    • 30th Sep 17, 8:28 AM
    • #5
    • 30th Sep 17, 8:28 AM
    Thank you very much. I have submitted the appeal and waiting to see. If I get a few minutes I will write to mp and DVLA. I can't believe how they are allowed to waste people time. I believe every time they loose popla appeal they should pay out compensation.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 30th Sep 17, 8:52 AM
    • 1,307 Posts
    • 1,698 Thanks
    Castle
    • #6
    • 30th Sep 17, 8:52 AM
    • #6
    • 30th Sep 17, 8:52 AM
    Same car park; POPLA have just ruled that 13 minutes is a reasonable grace period for leaving:-
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5691633&page=2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Sep 17, 12:13 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 30th Sep 17, 12:13 PM
    • #7
    • 30th Sep 17, 12:13 PM
    Same car park; POPLA have just ruled that 13 minutes is a reasonable grace period for leaving:-
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5691633&page=2
    Originally posted by Castle
    Indeed, which proves it is vital in the POPLA appeal to explain the nature and size of the car park, mention the time of year and that it;s a popular beach car park, even though it's obvious, and that people were walking around with surfboards and beach paraphernalia, and other cars manoeuvring in and out of spaces, which delays any car from managing to leave and get out onto the main road, which is at a standstill due to heavy beach traffic and a traffic light outside.

    All of that needs to be laid on thick at POPLA stage, and the decision by Carly Law can also be mentioned.
    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.

    • Andrewuk
    • By Andrewuk 2nd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Andrewuk
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    Parkingscam just uploaded there evidence. 55 pages including a piece of paper signed by a manager from the golf club saying that they have a contract with the land owner. They uploaded loads of photos of the car park and signs. They even said that they allow 10min or more for leaving the car park yet they fined me for it.

    Popla asked me for comments. Do I submit any or what I already said it's enough?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 2nd Oct 17, 4:58 PM
    • 16,922 Posts
    • 21,025 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:58 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:58 PM
    you pick apart their evidence and issue short rebuttals , same as everyone else has done this year (another subject done to death)

    search the forum for 2017 posts on POPLA REBUTTAL
    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
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 2nd Oct 17, 5:28 PM
    • 40,520 Posts
    • 80,915 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    As above, absolutely rebut every bit of evidence. Where they quote ten minutes, you quote eleven ref C-m's post, and thirteen ref the recent PoPLA decision, plus the unspecified grace period before parking begins, quoting the relevant part of the BPA CoP that mentions it.

    Point out that a letter from an alleged club manager means nothing and state that since parking lie have not produced the actual contract, the assumption in law must be that it does not exist or is no longer valid.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Andrewuk
    • By Andrewuk 2nd Oct 17, 6:30 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Andrewuk
    All done thank you very much. The evidence they supplied confirmed that on the way out I took 10min so it made it even easier. Is there a way to get money out of them for wasting my time? Surely they shouldn't asked DVLA for my details where it clearly shows that I was right.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Oct 17, 6:34 PM
    • 15,926 Posts
    • 24,689 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    If you now want to turn the tables you could sue them for misuse of your data under the DPA. It's not for the faint-hearted or for those who think it's an easy run, assuming the forums will do most of the work - they won't. If you're prepared to put your back into this, the following will hopefully assist you.

    DATA PROTECTION ACT GUIDANCE

    First and foremost, please read thoroughly this extensive guidance put together by MSE poster Timothea. This will give you the background and conditions for you to consider and determine whether you might have a case to pursue.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388

    Other Sources

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act

    Some apposite blogs from the Parking Prankster:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/parking-awareness-services-to-pay-400.html#comment-form

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

    Latter part of this blog:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

    On PePiPoo, regular contributor 'Lynnzer' seems to be taking a lead in pushing for the pursuit of DPA breaches by PPCs. He has written a number of well constructed Letters Before Claim requiring the PPC to pay the motorist between £250 and £750 as compensation for the stress they have been put under by the PPC, or risk the matter resulting in a formal claim at the Small Claims Court. .

    http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/Templates.pdf

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

    LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

    Drafted by Bargepole 05/02/2017

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72049019&postcount=18
    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 2nd Oct 17, 6:35 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Wow, was it purportedly just 1 minute at the start (I don't believe the systems are synchronised because it's impossible to drive in, park, lock the car, walk over to read the signs and then pay in one minute flat) and ten minutes to leave?

    I hope you laid it on thick about the other traffic in the way; cars turning and parking, and blocking the way out, and surfboard-carrying pedestrians et al, and how busy that day at the beach was, how large the car park is, etc., as discussed on every Tower Rd thread?

    It's not 'easy' to beat these, some people have failed, even with 11 minute ''overstay'' and much depends on what you just said to comment on the evidence.

    As per post #7, I hope you used Carly Law's decision and laid it on thick, as advised, when making those comments:

    Indeed, which proves it is vital in the POPLA appeal to explain the nature and size of the car park, mention the time of year and that it;s a popular beach car park, even though it's obvious, and that people were walking around with surfboards and beach paraphernalia, and other cars manoeuvring in and out of spaces, which delays any car from managing to leave and get out onto the main road, which is at a standstill due to heavy beach traffic and a traffic light outside.

    All of that needs to be laid on thick at POPLA stage, and the decision by Carly Law can also be mentioned.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-10-2017 at 6:38 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.

    • Andrewuk
    • By Andrewuk 10th Oct 17, 1:22 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Andrewuk
    It's been 8 days since I have uploaded the comments and I still haven't heard back :/
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Oct 17, 6:23 AM
    • 15,926 Posts
    • 24,689 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    It's been 8 days since I have uploaded the comments and I still haven't heard back :/
    Originally posted by Andrewuk
    4 to 6 weeks sometimes for a decision, from the time of your first submission.
    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.
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

4,566Posts Today

9,283Users online

Martin's Twitter