post

Big_Bad_Dad

Hello Dave

The alleged violation I see is "leaving the car park". Goodbye parking company, there is no proof. Do they have paparazzi style pictures of your family leaving the car and every person that had been in that vehicle walking off the premise? I'll give you 100-1 odds the answer is "no".

But just supposing they did, CCTV footage recorded the whole thing.

How will the CCTV footage know whether you didn't drop a person off prior to entering the car park for that individual to go into the store, and that the vehicle had been parked for the benefit of that person upon return? How would Mr.Ticket Man know that the customer for whom the car was parked had not already been in the store with the plan to find the car for himself and load the boot with the items before driving off with the spare keys, according to prior arrangement with the person driving in?

The don't have a cat in hell's chance against you with their scanty evidence.

At this point, you do not need to contact them. They won't have any proof 28 days after the alleged incident that the windscreen ticket was acknowledged and not removed by somebody not connected to the car. Here they would have to purchase keeper details, their problem, and then issue a Notice to Keeper.

When that NtK arrives, let the tournament commence. Challenge them to produce evidence that the car was not used for the purpose of a shopper that had not been on the premise at all times and if they reject your representation on their negligible privacy-evading images, POPLA will do the job for them at the next stage.

You're safe!

Coupon-mad

dave.b wrote: »

Sorry Redx,I will email tomorrow should I say anything else ?I spoke to the manager of the store today again and she is waiting for them to get back to her.

Why don't you just send a POPLA form downloaded from the BPA website, draft an appeal and show us first, and then post it with that code on it? You could just put a covering letter saying the code doesn't work online as you think JAS has put 2015 on it instead of 2014 but here is your appeal anyway in good time.

Only show your draft POPLA appeal here, once you have sussed 'How to win at POPLA' which is a simple link in the 'Newbies' thread already linked above.

Redx

@ dad

clearly you did not read page 1

he clearly stated that they had taken pictures of his family leaving the car park and going to KFC (they should have warned him about breaking their rules but didnt)

he also clearly stated that he already has the NTK ( or NTO or NTD) with a popla code attached

I believe he has probably responded to the PCN and contacted them , so they have replied with an NTO or NTK and basically given away the driver details and probably saved them the DVLA fee too

he even stated he complained to the ticketer about getting the ticket and pictures and proof were taken, so I dont believe he can deny the ticket wasnt issued or kids nicked it or it "blew away" , the ticketer even told him to appeal it

its already been checked and found to be jan 2015 instead of jan 2014 verification code , so clearly its not a valid popla code and so cannot be used , which is why he has been told to dispute it

Big_Bad_Dad

Redx wrote: »

he even stated he complained to the ticketer about getting the ticket and pictures and proof were taken, so I dont believe he can deny the ticket wasnt issued or kids nicked it or it "blew away" , the ticketer even told him to appeal it

Oh yes he can. The ticketer will not be questioned, and in any case would never have known whether the protestor was genuinely associated with the motor.

Fair enough about the remainder of your post to which I confess I did not read every detail, I just focused on what I thought was necessary.

The bottom line remains that if it were to go further, the parking company does not have evidence of the breach. This is the fundamental flaw with ticketers who can only issue a charge when they assume a breach has occurred whereas in actual fact in cannot be established that there had been a breach on certain matters such as Parent & Child bay abuse or leaving the premise UNTIL a motorist turns up from somewhere and drives off.

Redx

the judge in the Ibbottson case stated it was a shame that the ticketer had not been brought before him and VCS said he had left the company, so if it went to court in this case I would be asking for the ticketer to be brought before the judge if it were me in the "dock"

clearly the Ibbottson case set a precedent on this , but although I do not agree with this going off site rule (and have said so several times on here) its clearly why he was penalised in this case , but he hasnt done himself any favours by emailing them and getting an NTD in reply as he should have waited for the NTK

the fact that they have been stupid and issued a 2015 ticket just makes matters worse

not a gpeol or possibly not a valid contract would win this at popla so I doubt the other issues will be decided upon

as for the other details, I read all of this thread when it was first put up (before it was edited) and I checked that code myself too , there was a lot more detail than there is now but you can still see the time line if you study it more carefully

waiting for an NTK is clearly not going to happen now they issued an NTD in response to his email, with a useless popla code, so to me he needs to get pro-active on this

bod1467

Agreed. The PPC have ALREADY rejected an appeal and issued a (duff) POPLA code. So there WON'T BE any NtK coming along.

The OP needs to get moving on this, first with a complaint to the PPC and the BPA regarding the invalid POPLA code.

dave.b

This the email that im going to send later is it ok. Hello i have checked the code you have sent me and it is invalid and i need a new code or i will report you to the BPA.I have spoken to the manger of B&M about this ticket and she is not very happy,some people use the cash machine over the before coming in to her store she said. The manger has rung your office too about the ticket to get it stopped and is waiting for your reply. The law recently stated that their operative should have told me that i was about to break the rules in going off the site seeing as he was aware and took photographs of you doing it.So could please get in back the manger of the B&M store cancel the ticket or send me the new code so i can get the case sorted.

HO87

Three things:

1. Just a note of caution here guys about the use of the "p" word - in this case "precedent". Remember that from a legal perspective no county court case establishes a precedent.

2. All parties to proceedings have a duty to minimise their loss/costs. In the instant case the fact that the PPC had the opportunity to minimise their costs - by warning the OP about their alleged "transgression" before they/their family left the car park leaves the PPC in exactly the same position as VCS were at Scun thorpe. Stuffed. One hopes that this does not involve VCS or Excel anywhere in the North Lincolnshire circuit because if it does then HHJ McIlwaine will be inviting someone to bring their toothbrush with them again and this time they will need it.

3. The level of proof in civil proceedings is balance of probabilities i.e. 51%. A credible account stitched around a series of photographs is as likely as anything else to clinch. IMO

Redx

agreed , not being legally trained I did not know the correct word to use , so used what is a commonly used word, I merely meant to say that there is a judgement where the judge has decided that it may be the case that members of the public go "off site" be it to use a cash machine, go to a vet or whatever , what that word is I dont know, but clearly a judge decided he thought it reasonable that the ticketer was legally bound to tell the vehicle owner about the fact he would have to ticket him had he left the site

so whatever the legal words are, I cannot say, but you all understand my meaning by what I said, which the ticketer in this case has failed to do

dave.b

How this Hello i have checked the code you have sent me and it is invalid and i need a new code or i will report you to the BPA.I have spoken to the manger of B&M about this ticket and she is not very happy,some people use the cash machine over the before coming in to her store she said. The manger has rung your office too about the ticket to get it stopped and is waiting for your reply. Agreed , not being legally trained I did not know the correct word to use , so used what is a commonly used word, I merely meant to say that there is a judgement where the judge has decided that it may be the case that members of the public go "off site" be it to use a cash machine, go to a vet or whatever , what that word is I dont know, but clearly a judge decided he thought it reasonable that the ticketer was legally bound to tell the vehicle owner about the fact he would have to ticket him had he left the site

so whatever the legal words are, I cannot say, but you all understand my meaning by what I said, which the ticketer in this case has failed to do.So could please get in back the manger of the B&M store cancel the ticket or send me the new code so i can get the case sorted