Staff Parking at Hospital - TPS again - told where to park - ticketed anyway!

zoonyx

Me again!

Not long ago we successfully challenged a ticket...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4805864

Anyway, today - another ticket.

The past 3 days, the staff car park has been full, and the TPS ticket bloke has told people to park in a non-designated area. Today, the car park was again full, so my gf parked in the same non-designated area. Now she's been given a ticket.

Before ranting away at them, I know POPLA does not take into account mitigating circumstances, and I'm concerned this may be just that, regardless of the stupidity of the moving goalposts of this car park.

Is that anything specific we should mention in the appeal, and by *not* waiting for the NTK, can we 'stop the clock' at the "pay within 7 days for a discount" stage?

She has taken photos of the location in the car park, and says the signage doesn't mention correct bays anyway.

In some ways I think she has been a bit daft parking in a non-designated bay anyway, regardless of the ticket operative saying to do so, but in another way.... what the hell is she supposed to do to NOT get a ticket?

Thanks in advanced... any thoughts/tips?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Why would you worry about paying

Wait for the ntk and do as before, appeal on normal winning basis. Forget the photos of bays they are not relevent

zoonyx

So you think ignore the fact she was told to park there, just go with the usual GPEOL again? Because there clearly wasn't.

I do wonder (perhaps paranoia) whether this is deliberate. It just seems a totally stupid ticket to give out.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes, ignore that it wont help, just go with the usual winning ways
Well dont let it worry you, await ntk and you know what yo do

zoonyx

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Yes, ignore that it wont help, just go with the usual winning ways
Well dont let it worry you, await ntk and you know what yo do

I do indeed, and I'll report back! Many thanks

Coupon-mad

zoonyx wrote: »

So you think ignore the fact she was told to park there, just go with the usual GPEOL again? Because there clearly wasn't.

I do wonder (perhaps paranoia) whether this is deliberate. It just seems a totally stupid ticket to give out.

Wait for the NTK anyway. I would then appeal on no GPEOL, no standing/authority and also that there was a verbal contract from TPS themselves to park in that area while the car park was full. So any other contract upon which they are relying is null and void and they may like to speak to their employee on site about this matter as it is sharp practice to issue a ticket when a driver is simply following TPS' own directions on where to park. Obviously with no implying who was actually driving.

zoonyx

Hello again CM!

I will go along with what you say really. I would very much like to mention the fact she was told where to park. GPEOL is great, but this is about more than that if you know what I mean. We want a positive result, but also something must be done about this car park/attendant - the rules change on a daily basis.

BTW, 2 quick questions (please feel free to answer with links, but I have searched and can't find much).

1) Why is the advice to wait for NtK?
2) Why do we talk as RK not as driver, and why should the drivers ID not be told?

These are questions for my own knowledge, as opposed to anything to do with this ticket.

Redx

zoonyx wrote: »

Hello again CM!

I will go along with what you say really. I would very much like to mention the fact she was told where to park. GPEOL is great, but this is about more than that if you know what I mean. We want a positive result, but also something must be done about this car park/attendant - the rules change on a daily basis.

BTW, 2 quick questions (please feel free to answer with links, but I have searched and can't find much).

1) Why is the advice to wait for NtK?
2) Why do we talk as RK not as driver, and why should the drivers ID not be told?

These are questions for my own knowledge, as opposed to anything to do with this ticket.

those questions are answered in the NEWBIES sticky thread you are all pointed at

bod1467

1) because PPCs often make mistakes in their NTKs, thus breaching POFA requirements and thus nullifying keeper liability

2) because if keeper liability is nullified then the PPC can only pursue the driver - and you don't want to tell them who that is, do you?

zoonyx

Redx wrote: »

those questions are answered in the NEWBIES sticky thread you are all pointed at

Apologies, I relied on the search engine, and clearly searched for the wrong thing - I deserve that :P

zoonyx

bod1467 wrote: »

1) because PPCs often make mistakes in their NTKs, thus breaching POFA requirements and thus nullifying keeper liability

2) because if keeper liability is nullified then the PPC can only pursue the driver - and you don't want to tell them who that is, do you?

Many thanks - I'll get back in my box now ha!