Appealing against Nappy-er

ItsJustCurtis

What sort of arguments should I write? I found this thread "N**ier PCN" (can't post links as a noob), which appears to be under similar circumstances, even down to the court example used :P I'm trying to get a photo of the parking notice as according to the photo's they've sent, they appear well lit and they managed to get a photo of one with my car clearly in line of sight, so I don't think I can pull the visibility card. However I'm not sure if the notice clearly demonstrates charges or other required info. As said though, I was parking in a free (included in rent) car park, clearly displaying paid for permits, which they conveniently provided evidence for, so the claim of a genuine pre-estimate of loss is complete B*llocks :P

Cygnus_Alpha

ItsJustCurtis wrote: »

What sort of arguments should I write? I found this thread "N**ier PCN" (can't post links as a noob), which appears to be under similar circumstances, even down to the court example used :P I'm trying to get a photo of the parking notice as according to the photo's they've sent, they appear well lit and they managed to get a photo of one with my car clearly in line of sight, so I don't think I can pull the visibility card. However I'm not sure if the notice clearly demonstrates charges or other required info. As said though, I was parking in a free (included in rent) car park, clearly displaying paid for permits, which they conveniently provided evidence for, so the claim of a genuine pre-estimate of loss is complete B*llocks :P

I've read a case on the Napier website where they won and they used a proper barrister too. Must have cost them upwards of £1000 to win £70. And they only just won too!

The circumstances of that case are not the same as yours so while they will push you down into that line of thinking, don't fall for it.

Fergie76

Read the newbie thread. There are templates there, just amend for your own particular set of circumstances.

Redx

you can post links, but not "live" links

so paste the url into your reply and change http to hxxp , its that simple

plus there are many examples linked from post #3 of the newbies sticky thread , although I would go with the close match if its fairly recent ? say in the last 12 months

the signage has to conform to the BPA CoP , not just about visibility or clarity

ItsJustCurtis

aha, h**p://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5055858&highlight=lloyd12&page=2 is the link you need :P As I say, the circumstances are very similar though I think there are some subtle differences. Having looked through the newbie threads it specifically said to start a thread about Nafler (among others) as they require a bit more work. Just want to make sure I've got every base covered before hitting POPLA

Herzlos

I would also add a point that the duration of the stay was covered by the pre-paid visitors permits, so there was no loss.

Fergie76

ItsJustCurtis wrote: »

aha, h**p://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5055858&highlight=lloyd12&page=2 is the link you need :P As I say, the circumstances are very similar though I think there are some subtle differences. Having looked through the newbie threads it specifically said to start a thread about Nafler (among others) as they require a bit more work. Just want to make sure I've got every base covered before hitting POPLA

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5055858

HO87

I would be very cautious about including the threat of "dobbing" them in to the landowner as with a few exceptions Napier are often effectively the landowners as well - albeit through a sister company. On that basis they are unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot.

For example - Pearson Street car park, Brierley Hill. Managed by Napier and owned by Leisure Activity LLP - the directors of which are also the directors of Napier.

If the car park in question is one of those in and around MK or Bletchley); Southgate, Sleaford or Olney Market Place then they are not the owners and there may therefore be a marginal benefit in contacting the landowners.

As far as the Market Place in Olney is concerned one wonders how they legally enforce at the location given that it falls within the borough of MK which is decriminalised under the terms of TMA 2004 (for the purposes of parking enforcement). Shades of Bawtry and Port Isaac, methinks.

ItsJustCurtis

I don't believe they are the landowners as it is a private apartment complex, with parking inside the buildings, I find it hard to believe that they own the land inside the building owned by the apartments

Herzlos

HO87 wrote: »

For example - Pearson Street car park, Brierley Hill. Managed by Napier and owned by Leisure Activity LLP - the directors of which are also the directors of Napier.

This would still mean any court action would need to come from Leisure Activity LLP and not Nappyer though, who are still working as agents despite being the same directors?