Drive through private road in error

Fruitcake

frankwoman wrote: »

I too have received the same penalty letter for driving along the same road, please can someone advise who I appeal to ? Is it Minster Watch and what do I actually say? The photo of my car could be taken on any road anywhere it doesn't display the signs at all. This was a one off and I was entering the college?
Any advice / template appeal letter would be much appreciated

Read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES then start your own thread. All the information you need on how to appeal this is in the NEWBIES thread.

fisherjim

Marktheshark wrote: »

It has a no vehicles TRO sign, which the council put up.
The ownership of the land is a silver bullet to a PPC.

Our local hospital is full of conventional looking road signs, keep left signs, and double yellow lines, it also has UKPC signs saying it's private land!!

Anyone can buy them:http://www.road-signs.uk.com/Road_Signs/Circular_Giving_Orders.html

k3lvc

fisherjim wrote: »

Our local hospital is full of conventional looking road signs, keep left signs, and double yellow lines, it also has UKPC signs saying it's private land!!

Anyone can buy them:http://www.road-signs.uk.com/Road_Signs/Circular_Giving_Orders.html

So is this a case of people ignoring the signs because they don't think they're legal or just driving blindly and not seeing the signs that are there ?

The_Slithy_Tove

k3lvc wrote: »

So is this a case of people ignoring the signs because they don't think they're legal or just driving blindly and not seeing the signs that are there ?

Who cares? Whatever the reasons, it doesn't alter the fact that the PPCs who then send out charges are acting outside the law in doing so, and the DVLA are also guilty by association in that they hand out the details without carrying out due diligence in verifying the reason for the request, which would certainly be denied if they (a) knew, (b) could be bothered and (c ) weren't so corrupt themselves that they put the revenue they get above complying with the law.

frankwoman

Marktheshark wrote: »

Have they quoted POFA 2012 anywhere on the letter they sent.

Yes. What does this actually mean? Rather lost with all this

stator

frankwoman wrote: »

Yes. What does this actually mean? Rather lost with all this

In short POFA 2012 means they can send their 'parking charge' to the registered keeper of the vehicle, even if he wasn't the driver. As others have said above it only applies to parking.

youreds

Umkomaas wrote: »

Next thing, some of these operators will be purchasing speed cameras.

There'll still be plenty of traumatised mugs who'll pay up without a squeak!

They already have them on Ryde Pier on the IOW. 10MPH limit or an 'excess' charge applies.

k3lvc

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Who cares? Whatever the reasons, it doesn't alter the fact that the PPCs who then send out charges are acting outside the law in doing so, and the DVLA are also guilty by association in that they hand out the details without carrying out due diligence in verifying the reason for the request, which would certainly be denied if they (a) knew, (b) could be bothered and (c ) weren't so corrupt themselves that they put the revenue they get above complying with the law.

Cracking response :T

For the purposes of this particular instance (and not discussing any other PPC issues of the validity of the 'penalty' in this instance) I'm interested whether thise caught just chose to ignore any signs believing they didn't apply to them or claimed not to see them (which given the view on google maps would suggest they should probably go to Specsavers)

Your view suggests the world should be a free for all and people should be able to drive however/wherever they want on private land

ManxRed

k3lvc wrote: »

Your view suggests the world should be a free for all and people should be able to drive however/wherever they want on private land

No it doesn't. You've just chosen to interpret it that way.

For a good reason I suspect.

k3lvc

ManxRed wrote: »

No it doesn't. You've just chosen to interpret it that way.

For a good reason I suspect.

Come on then - hit me with the 'good reason' ? Genuinely interested how wrong you might be ?