Let the games commence

Parking-Prankster

A hey nonny nonny and New Year felicitations to all. There is not enough levity and happiness in the parking industry, but fear not, the Parking Prankster is here to change all that.

Here is today's appeal news, fresh off the press.

Dear Sir,

I have received the speculative invoice referred to above and I wish to invoke your appeal process.

As my car was not parked at this location between the times stated, I can only assume that I have been the victim of malicious space aliens, beaming holograms of my car from their spacecraft in low earth orbit.

For complete protection from space aliens while processing this appeal, it is recommended that you wear dark glasses and wrap tinfoil around your head at all times.

I will not be entering into further correspondence with you, and I require you to respond within 10 days, then either cancel the invoice or issue me with a POPLA code within 35 days. Failure to comply with these timescales will result in the invoice being deemed automatically cancelled as per BPA guidelines.

Any communication with me other than acknowledging this letter, cancelling the invoice or issuing a POPLA code will be treated as harassment.

Yours faithfully,

Parking Prankster

And the reply

Dear Sir

With reference to the Parking Notice issued to the above vehicle, after reviewing our data and in view of the representations made in connection with its issue, we have decided to cancel this Notice and no further action is to be taken.

We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely

(squiggle)

Highview Parking Ltd

ginnersinner

:beer:

Excellent!! What reasons have you used on your other appeals? A dog ate your car perhaps? Or 'My car must have a twin sister'!

Parking-Prankster

No, but excellent suggestions for appeals 4 and 5.

All will be revealed once the cases are complete

patman99

Made me laugh.

SodG24

It's strange - the moment I sent a completely ridiculous email to Parking Eye about me breaking their rules I didn't get the appropriate invoice. It could be suggested that an alternative solution to ignoring these invoices is to send completely off the wall appeals !

atilla

I told TCP theire appeal for funding, having been reviewed by our finance department, had unfortunately been rejected. Whilst our procedures do not allow for a further appeal, we are willing on this occasion to look at the issue gain.
Any further appeal for funding would however require to be sent with appeal, copies of all evidence, and correspence confirming legal right to said funding. Also, to comply with standard accounting practices, we would of course require any appeal to be accompanied by a proper VAT compliant invoice.

"in light of the points raised, i am please to confirm the PCN has been cancelled"

Yours sincerely
Town and City Parking Ltd

daveyjp

I may try something similar with Parking Eye, particularly the VAT issue!

Parking-Prankster

Todays appeal, upheld by POPLA

As my car was not parked at this location between the times stated, I can only assume that you have made a mistake.

Fortunately for the last few years I have begun to suspect that I am cultivating superpowers. I believe this is because I may have been bitten by a radioactive spider when I was a child. The particular superpower I possess is to cancel any parking charge notice issued to me.

In the unlikely event you possess enough kryptonite to overcome my superpowers, and you refuse to cancel this invoice, please issue me with a POPLA appeal code.

PPC initial rejection

We are unable to accept your claim that you have superpowers and your claim bears no relevance to this matter whatsoever.

PPC POPLA Representations

We received an appeal, in the loosest possible sense of the word, from [the Parking Prankster] on the basis that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and, as such, has superpowers which include cancelling any Parking Charge Notice issued to him.

His appeal was rejected on the grounds that we are unable to accept his claim, which bears no relevance to a serious appeals process.

[The Parking Prankster's] correspondence made it clear that, in the event that his appeal was not accepted by us, he would appeal to POPLA.

You are therefore essentially being asked to assess and comment on the case of a deliberately evasive and deceitful driver who wishes to make a mockery of the issue of Parking Charge Notices and the appeals process thereafter.

Needless to say, as a company that strives to adhere to the best practice in the industry, we are monitoring the outcome of this case very closely and would be both astonished and spurred into immediate further action if any credence were given to [The Parking Prankster's] claim.

As a postscript to this summary, we know you will appreciate that we can only summarise what we have received and cannot summarise that which has not been sent to us. We can confirm that we have only been sent one letter by [The Parking Prankster] and his appeal was rejected on the above grounds. Anything that was subsequently sent to POPLA without being sent to us can obviously not have been considered by us.

Having recently had sight of [The Parking Prankster's] most recent claim, we would point out our strong belief that our timings are correct and that the PCN was issued correctly. It is extremely interesting indeed that we pointed this out to [The Parking Prankster] in our response of 21st February 2013 and he did not respond to us at all but rather contacted POPLA, making a claim that he did not make to us at any stage.

And the POPLA verdict, in summary

The Appellant made representations, submitting that he had visited the site twice on the date in question, but that the automatic number plate recognition system had not registered his vehicle leaving and then returning to the site. The Appellant produced photographs and receipts that he submits show that the vehicle was elsewhere between 10.30 and 15.49. The photographs are not time or date stamped. The Appellant’s original representations states that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him.

[...] the Operator has not responded to the Appellant’s submission that although he did enter the site at 10.10, he left the site before returning again later in the day and then leaving for the second time at 15.55. For example, the Operator could have provided a search for all the images of the vehicle with registration mark xxx taken on the date in question. The Operator received a copy of the Appellant’s submissions and therefore has had the opportunity to produce evidence to refute them.


I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not produced any evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that he visited Yate Shopping Centre twice on the date in question and therefore did not overstay the maximum stay. I have therefore not been satisfied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

The_Slithy_Tove

That'll teach PE not to be quite so arrogant as to think a weak appeal won't be properly followed-up at POPLA. And they thought they could continue their highly suspect practice of ticketing people who THEY KNOW made two visits to the car park.

Working adjacent to PE car park tomorrow. Might just visit twice...

atilla

Nearly wet myself reading pranksters last post.