parking sign help

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

skypilot wrote: »

Are you advising no use at all of mitigating circumstances, or do I include them as well. I also intend to use what I consider to be other technical failings e.g. the original PCN whilst naming the location of the alleged offence uses a name which seems to general as I have found out that there are 2 operators in the same car park,one which takes care of the majority of car park spaces and the other a very ltd number. The site location box on the PCN was not filled in,the PCC will of course be able to show which part they operate. They also correctly identify the vehicle in question by its registration number but have stated incorrect detail regarding its colour.Minor details but they may help…I hope!

I'm afraid you are applying common sense and logic to a situation where you simply need to know that you are dealing with dishonest people. Forget about arguing your case based on evidence and use the posts in the sticky to win by using tried and tested legal arguments based on the dishonest nature of these charges that win every time.

skypilot

da_rule wrote: »

At this stage I wouldn't worry about it too much. But if you can get them up it might help. The two different PCC's is interesting. That could give rise to some interesting points on who enforces what. Maybe it's like joint custody, one PPC has the the sight Monday-Friday and the other has it at the weekend and on school holidays. Did you happen to notice if all of the signs referred to the same PPC?

The signs only refer to one PCC (6 Off) the other signs only make reference to clamping,trespass and warning off pedestrians.
I'm having difficulty finding out who owns the land and relevant parking bay in which the vehicle was allegedly in correctly parked.However, I may have a lead on that as I noticed upon examining my photos that there are advertising boards for agents to contact re leasing office space etc, so a couple of phone calls of further web searches should open more doors.
Thank for reading this, I really do appreciate your time and effort .

da_rule

Ah common sense, logic and truth, 3 ideas that seem to escape PPC's.

da_rule

Don't worry about gathering too much evidence. The wording of the POPLA appeal is done in such a way that it makes the PPC provide evidence. It is their responsibility to prove they have acted lawfully, it's not your responsibility to prove they haven't. If they cannot prove any of the legal points in the appeal template then they will not win at POPLA. An example of this is there is an assertion in the template that says something like "the PPC does not have the authorisation of the land owner (who isn't named, and is only referred to as the land owner) to enforce...." This then puts the onus on the PPC to produce the contracts showing who the land owner is and what powers the PPC has been given.

skypilot

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I'm afraid you are applying common sense and logic to a situation where you simply need to know that you are dealing with dishonest people. Forget about arguing your case based on evidence and use the posts in the sticky to win by using tried and tested legal arguments based on the dishonest nature of these charges that win every time.

Many thanks, Not sure I have a clue what many refer to and must confess it seems to simplistic to just reference legal arguments which may/ may not apply the situation and surely POPPLA must read this stuff and just think its oppertunistic for some untrained person to cite legal arguments which like me didn't even know they existed until using this site. I'm surprised they just don't turn down all appeals.
Anyway, once again thanks for your time and patience,the one thing I'm totally sure of is that I/we have spent too much of our time on theses crooks.Im knocked, off to bed said Zeberdee!

skypilot

4consumerrights wrote: »

You are not a £100 down if you don't end up paying anything!

Firstly though confirm here you are in
England or Wales please

Clamping was made illegal in England and Wales from 1/10/12
(Scotland was earlier - no keeper liability though for parking charges;
NI still has clamping but no keeper liabilty)

And also which PPC is this.

The NEWBIE appeal fits all PPCs and both IAS .

England. The PCC is VCS which I believe also operate as Excel. Share same board members etc usual bunch of crooks

da_rule

No doubt that POPLA and the PPC's read this forum. The arguments work because they are legal, as that is all that POPLA can consider. They also focus on points that are tried and tested and that the PPC's cannot (or will not) produce evidence on. And sure some points won't apply to all cases, some sites no doubt have amazing signage, but still make them prove it. The more inconvenient and costly you make defending an appeal the less likely they will bother. And if they don't bother you win by default. And if they do show up you'll win because of the strength of the appeal.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

skypilot wrote: »

Many thanks, Not sure I have a clue what many refer to and must confess it seems to simplistic to just reference legal arguments which may/ may not apply the situation and surely POPPLA must read this stuff and just think its oppertunistic for some untrained person to cite legal arguments which like me didn't even know they existed until using this site. I'm surprised they just don't turn down all appeals.
Anyway, once again thanks for your time and patience,the one thing I'm totally sure of is that I/we have spent too much of our time on theses crooks.Im knocked, off to bed said Zeberdee!

What is more surprising is that a supposedly independent appeals service, operated by a company wholly owned by servants organisations of the public is not interested in arguments that the public would understand.

We are not using legal trickery, we are using the fact that these very large charges simply cannot be legally justified. The parking companies and the appeal service know this.

If it unsettles you, use the standard letter we suggest and add in your reasoned arguments as well. That will still work, all you need is one winning point, extra points do not make it less likely to win.

DO NOT assume that your common sense view will win. We can guarantee you will lose, I'm afraid.

Coupon-mad

VCS are easy to beat at POPLA - usually on 'no GPEOL' or 'no relevant standing/contract with landowner'.

spacey2012

The BPA are a club made up by the scammers themselves.

Concentration on the POPLA will be far more use.