Parking Ticket :( Should I appeal it?

rokx

link.... deleted

Coupon-mad

http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/Rokx/media/Untitled_zpsde5123a0.png.html?sort=3&o=3#/user/Rokx/media/Untitled_zpsde5123a0.png.html?sort=3&o=3&_suid=136251867612502924203724452678

Can we also see the back? I see nothing about POPLA and appealing it, I see nothing about the registered keeper telling them who was driving, and I see that the fake PCN amount is not discounted by at least 40%.

Plenty of scope to appeal it anyway as I doubt they own the car park, but the back should be interesting if you can get a readable close up pic. Was it in England or Wales (no need to say which city or town)?

rokx

The rest follows on on the bottom of the ticket, rather than on the back. I'm in England (car park was Peterborough if it helps!)
Sorry it's not the clearest photo!

Stroma

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/Rokx/55AF358B-1A01-4340-8F8A-1A79F137FAC2-264-0000003884E51916_zpse05507e5.jpg

Aaron_Aadvark

The maths is wrong as usual.

£80 (unenforceable) charge.

40% discount = £32

Amount after 40% discount = £48

Stroma

Yep it doesn't comply as the BPA CoP says that they must offer at least a 40% discount for an early payment. They don't so are in breach of that. But even if it was £48 you should ignore it any case as they are in breach of MSE advice

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

Yep it doesn't comply as the BPA CoP says that they must offer at least a 40% discount for an early payment. They don't so are in breach of that. But even if it was £48 you should ignore it any case as they are in breach of MSE advice

Would that not be an automatic win for OP under Shona's rules of engagement?

From POPLA web site

Grounds of appeal

The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are as follows:

The vehicle was not improperly parked: e.g. that the vehicle was not parked where stated on the parking charge notice; that you believe you were still within the time you paid for; that the voucher was clearly displayed or that the conditions were not properly signed.
The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount: e.g. that you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge or that the charge has already been paid.
The vehicle was stolen: e.g. that the vehicle was improperly parked after being stolen. However, the fact that someone else was driving your vehicle, for example a family member, friend or colleague, is not in itself a valid ground of appeal. The fact that you told the driver that they could only use your vehicle on condition they did not get any parking tickets is not a valid ground of appeal.

The lower amount is the discounted rate and if that's incorrectly calculated, then it looks as if it fails the above.

Stroma

I believe it would, but you'd need to appeal on a number of points, it's cumulative and you are trying to put a pattern of behaviour by the ppc on this.

ManxRed

It ought to be, I'll say that much. But I won't second guess the seemingly inconsistent thinking of Shona and state categorically!!

Guys_Dad

I would probably second that. The problem with the POPLA thing is that no one sees all the papers except the adjudicator.

The big flaw in POPLA, of course, is that whereas forum such as this or pepipoo, see the parking industry as immoral and predominantly not having the right to charge these extortionate amounts, POPLA was created on the basis that there is a valid industry in place.

Shona is therefore in a cleft stick as, for POPLA to have a raison d'être, it assumes that there are valid contracts in place that bestow the right to extort on PPCs and, unless the appellant specifically cites dodgy contract in their appeal, she will not consider that point.