NTK for a parking charge dated 25/04/2014

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The Parking Notice to Driver was issued via a windscreen ticket on dd/mm/yy.

I feel that the keeper does not need to, and should not, mention the windscreen PCN with knowledge. I wouldn't if I was appealing as keeper, I would just start with a version of your second sentence: 'The Notice to Keeper was issued on dd/mm/yy, and received on xx/xx/14, which is some xxx days after the date of the parking incident you are alleging'.

FunkyParka

bazster wrote: »

Would be curious to see the piccy of that sign too.

I found two signs:

hxxp://imgur.com/F4re0md
hxxp://imgur.com/HlU0R2x

(Replace hxxp with http.)

bazster

http://imgur.com/F4re0md
http://i.imgur.com/HlU0R2x.jpg

Thanks. As I expected, utter gibberish.

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I feel that the keeper does not need to, and should not, mention the windscreen PCN with knowledge. I wouldn't if I was appealing as keeper, I would just start with a version of your second sentence: 'The Notice to Keeper was issued on dd/mm/yy, and received on xx/xx/14, which is some xxx days after the date of the parking incident you are alleging'.

I can live with that change.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

http://imgur.com/F4re0md
http://i.imgur.com/HlU0R2x.jpg

Thanks. As I expected, utter gibberish.

The first linked sign makes no sense (illiterate goons, ex clamping thickos no doubt!) and the second sign talks about clamping and towing (illegal for nearly two years) and has a different company name at the bottom! Not only that, a car parked 'nicely' without a permit doesn't even give rise to a charge going by any of the gibberish wording, only:

'incorrectly parked vehicles not displaying a valid permit'

or

'illegally parked vehicles not displaying a valid permit'

Looks like 'CUP' used to be clampers called Elite Enforcement Services.

Please please please can we also see their Notice to Keeper to laugh at? Both sides please?!

FunkyParka

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep that's fine, no need to show your whole reply. But be careful it may have to be sent to PCS not CUP (depends what the letter says about how to submit appeals). Follow that. Don't send anything 'signed for' as PPCs and debt collector won't sign and may turn away such letters!

Can we see a scan or pic of both sides of the Notice to Keeper as I bet it's missing statutory wording defined under the POFA 2012 as well! Haven't seen a CUP one before and it will be useful for others in future if we can see now that it's flawed.
[/I]

The front and back, somewhat obscured:

hxxp://imgur.com/a/dAS93#1
hxxp://imgur.com/a/dAS93#0

(Replace hxxp with http.)

From reading the back, it seems that the appeal should go to PCS rather than CUP.

Guys_Dad

FunkyParka wrote: »

The front and back, somewhat obscured:

hxxp://imgur.com/a/dAS93#1
hxxp://imgur.com/a/dAS93#0

(Replace hxxp with http.)

From reading the back, it seems that the appeal should go to PCS rather than CUP.

Yes, definitely a winner on out of time. To save time and possibly missing something, take a look at this thread (to the end) and this will give you a chance to look at how this poster was advised to deal with a NtK out of time.

Perhaps there is a good chunk of the suggested appeal points here that would help you. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5037522

But do make NtK your No 1 appeal point. To be honest, the assessor should not need to go beyond that and would suggest saying that this is your appeal point and, only if they disagree with that, should they then consider points 2-5.

ampersand

op - just the usual 'obtain free CoP from Post Office'.

Surely a scumpany for Parky to go after? have just sent heads-up.

Gibberish is sadly not yet a criminal offence, but illegality is ...illegal? just like clamping and towing.

As per c-m, post 16 - please may we see this mockument, both sides?

bod1467

OP already did.

http://imgur.com/a/dAS93#1
http://imgur.com/a/dAS93#0

ampersand

Thanks bod, but that's odd - all I get is the throwbacks' illiterate and illegal signs.