Appealed but requiring more information

Coupon-mad

Honour123 wrote: »

Opinions? do you think I have a chance if I appeal?

How has this got to post 22 without you simply reading the Newbies thread and realising that an appeal with NO postal address at all is pointless but that you should have sent the template appeal shown in the sticky thread? Or waited for the Notice to Keeper (bit late for that).

I presume your appeal already said who was driving and all? Yet no postal address? Bit of a mess so far then, neither here nor there and messed up (but can be recovered).

EnigmaPart1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How has this got to post 22 without you simply reading the Newbies thread and realising that an appeal with NO postal address at all is pointless but that you should have sent the template appeal shown in the sticky thread? Or waited for the Notice to Keeper (bit late for that).

I presume your appeal already said who was driving and all? Yet no postal address? Bit of a mess so far then, neither here nor there and messed up (but can be recovered).

Yes you will win at POPLA, yes you can do this by following the Newbies thread.

Or you can pay PTAS to do it for you. You will win either way if you don't use your version of appeal.

He wont win at POPLA as they scuttled off to the IPC :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Did they? I thought they were still BPA! I guess because I recall helping someone with a POPLA appeal against them very recently.

EnigmaPart1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Did they? I thought they were still BPA!

Oh no hence why the service address was mentioned....

Edna_Basher

The interesting point with this case is that although Norwich Traffic Control Ltd jumped ship from the BPA and joined the IPC on 24/9/14, it has not got around to changing its signs yet; these still show membership of the BPA.

I suppose that this would mean that the driver may reasonably expect that any “contract” formed with Norwich Traffic Control Ltd would be compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, rather than that of the IPC. This would mean that Norwich Traffic Control Ltd had contractually agreed to provide access to an independent appeals process which:

• allowed the driver / keeper to make multiple submissions;
• supplied the driver / keeper with the PPC’s evidence and allowed the driver/keeper to respond to that evidence and;
• provided the driver/keeper with the name of the adjudicator.

If Norwich Traffic Control Ltd failed to provide such a process (providing only the secretive, biased, inconsistent, subjective IAS process instead), would this leave them in breach of contract, I wonder?

Edna_Basher

Honour123 wrote: »

It's for parking in a 'drop-off zone'

However, the sign doesn't quote a "contractually agreed" charge for parking in a drop-off zone.

In any case, surely a drop-off zone should be regarded as an "allocated bay", in which case a "contractually agreed" charge would not be applicable.

Honour123

Edna_Basher wrote: »

However, the sign doesn't quote a "contractually agreed" charge for parking in a drop-off zone.

In any case, surely a drop-off zone should be regarded as an "allocated bay", in which case a "contractually agreed" charge would not be applicable.

Good point, I shall add it to my appeal when I re-send the email. There does seem to be a whole lot of inconsistencies on there end that should help my case.

Coupon-mad

As it will be an IAS appeal, start reading about IAS appeals or take up PTAS' service address idea, to get rid.