University parking tickets worry

Kanye_West

bazster wrote: »

Fails to specify the means by which the requirement to pay charges was brought to the attention of the driver.

Fails to identify the creditor.

Would these points be strong enough to get the PCNs cancelled?

ManxRed

Not in themselves no, but they do mean that the parking company has failed to meet the criteria necessary to hold the keeper liable for the charge, so they are now restricted to pursuing the driver, and I'm assuming they don't know who that is?

If not, they're in trouble.

Kanye_West

ManxRed wrote: »

Not in themselves no, but they do mean that the parking company has failed to meet the criteria necessary to hold the keeper liable for the charge, so they are now restricted to pursuing the driver, and I'm assuming they don't know who that is?

If not, they're in trouble.

They do not know who the driver is. How does that stand against them? I'm still trying to get my head properly around the POPLA

Edit: Spelling...thanks Umkomaas

Umkomaas

Kanye_West wrote: »

They do not know who the driver is. How does that stand against them? I'm still trying to get my head properly around the POFLA

POPLA or PoFA - or is POFLA some kind of hybrid? :rotfl:

Kanye_West

ManxRed wrote: »

Not in themselves no, but they do mean that the parking company has failed to meet the criteria necessary to hold the keeper liable for the charge, so they are now restricted to pursuing the driver, and I'm assuming they don't know who that is?

If not, they're in trouble.

They don't know who the driver is. Would this be strong enough to message the BPA and uni saying that they can't be assuming keeper liability and handing out PCNs that miss out key points on the schedule 4 of the POFA12, breaching the laws. The universities allegations of me being the driver and holding me accountable is a serious breach of conduct, because as keeper I am not liable, the driver is. Furthermore, the University of York is using bullying tactics to try and evoke keeper liability. Then to say that I decline the invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle therefore I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following fine because of these breaches.

Is this good?

enfield_freddy

how many threads do you need on this subject , you have been told on another thread that you are a serial "taker of the pith" , 20 tickets? , yup 20!


I would not be surprised if the university took you to court for the outstanding 5 tickets , personally , if I had anything to do with it , I would ban you from entering thier land whilst driving a car , yup TRESPASS!!!

Kanye_West

enfield_freddy wrote: »

how many threads do you need on this subject , you have been told on another thread that you are a seri...

Looking for helpful and constructive advice, thank you.

enfield_freddy

then keep asking in one thread , not go resurrecting threads that you started back in 14-07-2014


if you want to continue this thread why start a new one?


you have been told you can go via the BPA , so do it!


you now know why they have moved to the "kangaroo club" , its because they struggled with you on 15 occurrence's , so said "stuff it" , why bother , lets just start doing court instead.

Umkomaas

Kanye_West wrote: »

Looking for helpful and constructive advice, thank you.

Freddy has his own way of saying things, but in the long term I would see his advice as being helpful and constructive.

The forum will help anyone who has genuinely made an error (often slight in nature), or falls foul of unclear or misleading PPC petty rules which leads to a PCN. But it has never been about encouraging rogue parking or providing long term advice to serial disregarders of landowner wishes.

bazster

Kanye_West wrote: »

Looking for helpful and constructive advice, thank you.

You have started another thread on this though, so please keep the discussion there and not split it across two threads.