Postal Notification of Parking Charge

Umkomaas

Love the fact they have circled the wrong car in one photo - good spot, Guy's Dad.

Complete foul up of comedic proportion.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

aleem321

Hello guys, I have not posted any image in which a car has been circled. The RED circles I made to show where the signage is from the space where the car was and also circled a tree to show the signage was not viewable because of the branches from an angle where the car was. Also the signage is in parallel to the road and towards the end of these few parking spaces. Opposite to this parking are flats and maybe one or 2 signsge are put on flat walls which I saw later when that guy said about getting a ticket.
Please point out which image has a car circled. ??

aleem321

My mistake guys, yes you are right. I have circled a wrong car image on the NTK. I will remove that image and post as amended. Thanks for spotting it.

Here is amended image.

hxxp://s1036.photobucket.com/user/aleem_1964m321/media/Front1_zps92713863.jpg.html

Coupon-mad

Oh OK, no worries.

This won't be the easiest appeal as it's IAS (in spite of the fact the NTK is flawed in various ways). So I would get sent off, the template appeal from the Newbies thread (second to top of the forum). In your case, I would add this towards the end of the appeal template:


You are not authorised under your KADOE contract to issue postal PCNs except where ANPR is used under strict procedures. The DVLA's position is that 'all vehicles should be ticketed where ANPR technology is not utilised' because this sort of postal PCN you have sent me, shows a 'lack of audit trail'. i.e. an Operator's employee cannot just take speculative pictures from a distance of cars parked but not showing a PCN served.

If you should take this matter to IAS appeal I will show among, other evidence:

- a recent FOI outcome from the DVLA proving that Operators must 'cease' this sort of postal ticket due to lack of audit trail.
- a copy of both sides of your PCN which not only states the charge is for breach of contract, but also fails to meet the mandatory requirements of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4.

Edna_Basher

Hi aleem321 - PM sent

aleem321

Umkomaas wrote: »

Are you able to read the VRM on your number plates on the NtK? The photos seem from a long distance away.

Umkomaas, on NTK number plate is NOT readable, but number plate is readable in the same images and 6 more images which PCM has posted on their website as an evidence.

aleem321

Umkomaas, would you please delete your post# 16. Could not send you pm, it is disabled.

Coupon-mad

aleem321 wrote: »

Umkomaas, on NTK number plate is NOT readable, but number plate is readable in the same images and 6 more images which PCM has posted on their website as an evidence.

If they had time to take eight photos then they should have issued a windscreen ticket as per their DVLA KADOE contract. Not sure that point will win at IAS (it's a flippin' lottery if you get the guy who almost audibly 'sighs on paper' & says our appeals are 'well-rehearsed but without merit', wonder who that might be...some friend of the IPC who is so up themselves, so seemingly biased & anti forum appeals??). But it's one of several points and Edna Basher will no doubt help even more by pm.

aleem321

I will send an initial appeal to PCM with added comments from coupon-mad to the drafted appeal in newbie sticky and will update here once I get a reply from PCM.
Dads Guy is there any comments from your post# 10 to add.

Umkomaas

aleem321 wrote: »

Umkomaas, would you please delete your post# 16. Could not send you pm, it is disabled.

Why? Your post #18 copies it anyway.