PCM ticket - Flat tyre. PCM Appeal rejected, should I go ias, popla or neither ?

scotthillier

The_Deep wrote: »

There are plenty of threads on here for and against appealing to the IAS.

Agreed. I've read a good number, which is why I am so confused as to whether I should bother or not.

At this point I'm airing on the side of "may aswell" before going the POPLA route.

ampersand

Gladly scott:-)

http://s7.postimg.org/fkyp3j5jf/front.jpg

http://s11.postimg.org/b7504zkb7/back.jpg

I see the magic words '.. you are agreeing to the following contractual terms', but only by committing an alleged offence :-)

Back this evening. Believe it or not, & has to get to village garage, pay for offside front tyre [limped back along grass verge last night]. leave keys, day's plans burgered etc....not too different:-)

Nodding_Donkey

and http://s11.postimg.org/b7504zkb7/back.jpg

Ralph-y

I think you need to do a little more reading so as to better understand the world of private parking ... ;-)

You can not do POPLA and IAS , it depends what the trade body the PPC company that invoiced you belong to.

PCM belong to the IPC , so POPLA is not an option.

Have a further read through the 'newbies' guide

here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Ralph:cool:

scotthillier

Sorry, yeah, you're right.

PCM used to be under POPLA and now aren't.

Confused myself by reading so many threads!

So I will draft an apeal to IAS.

Ralph-y wrote: »

I think you need to do a little more reading so as to better understand the world of private parking ... ;-)

You can not do POPLA and IAS , it depends what the trade body the PPC company that invoiced you belong to.

PCM belong to the IPC , so POPLA is not an option.

Have a further read through the 'newbies' guide

here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Ralph:cool:

waamo

To agree to pay £100 because you have broken down is logical and legal nonsense and this should be clearly pointed out to the IAS.

It won't make any difference to them they will likely still reject your appeal. What it does do though is show the absurdity of their process. I wouldn't use a template rather say what happened in your own words and drive home (no pun intended) the fact you did not agreed to enter into a contract but that circumstances forced your hand.

Please let us know how you get on.

ampersand

waamo, we must agree to disagree to some extent, but importantly, I believe.
It is a First Principle of Appeal success on this Forum.

Mitigation is a bolt-on, not the core of any successful Appeal or rebuttal. These are won on points of Law.

scotth - in your case, the tyre situation will make them look even more idiotic than usual. Save that as your forensic dessert, if you like.

It's important you show the scumpany that you know your way clinically and comprehnsively around private parking law, which is why the tried and tested templates, esp. for POPLA, work. This Forum, starting with Newbies Stickies re-reads, is your arsenal. full of live ammo.

Just because the ludicrously named :rotfl:'Independent':rotfl:Appeals Service will most likely reject your Appeal [on points of Law] is not a reason to deflect from the correct path and m.o.

Any subsequent cranking up they try can only show them in an even sillier light, against your relevant, tightly presented, well-written case, no matter how they dress it up, no matter how many trees' worth of paper they try to bludgeon you with.

You also make it clear that they are liable for your time, at the Court approved rate of £18p.h. and all costs arising, including, but not limited to, stationery, postage, copying, ink, utilities.

scotthillier

Whilst I agree it's important to show you know your way around the law first and foremost , I really don't see why you shouldn't mention that the car was immovable.

These are PEOPLE we're dealing with at the end of the day.

No point in being obtuse for the sake of it, we're not all lawyers.

ampersand wrote: »

waamo, we must agree to disagree to some extent, but importantly, I believe.
It is a First Principle of Appeal success on this Forum.

Mitigation is a bolt-on, not the core of any successful Appeal or rebuttal. These are won on points of Law.

scotth - in your case, the tyre situation will make them look even more idiotic than usual. Save that as your forensic dessert, if you like.

It's important you show the scumpany that you know your way clinically and comprehnsively around private parking law, which is why the tried and tested templates, esp. for POPLA, work. This Forum, starting with Newbies Stickies re-reads, is your arsenal. full of live ammo.

Just because the ludicrously named :rotfl:'Independent':rotfl:Appeals Service will most likely reject your Appeal [on points of Law] is not a reason to deflect from the correct path and m.o.

Any subsequent cranking up they try can only show them in an even sillier light, against your relevant, tightly presented, well-written case, no matter how they dress it up, no matter how many trees' worth of paper they try to bludgeon you with.

You also make it clear that they are liable for your time, at the Court approved rate of £18p.h. and all costs arising, including, but not limited to, stationery, postage, copying, ink, utilities.

Herzlos

You should do both.

They'll reject it anyway, but you can then take their rejection letter to court if they ever bothered to take it that far.

Start with mitigation as your first point, and then follow it up with the legal defence, make them reject all of it.

scotthillier

Herzlos wrote: »

You should do both.

They'll reject it anyway, but you can then take their rejection letter to court if they ever bothered to take it that far.

Start with mitigation as your first point, and then follow it up with the legal defence, make them reject all of it.

That was my thought process.

I'm right in saying I shouldn't be doing any of this until I receive paper letters rather than just the windscreen ticket right?

Even though that means I miss out on the £60 "grace" period.