PCN for not displaying ticket, when it was visible

agh100

I have received the NTK now for the PCN above.

So I just appeal using the template on here, modifying it for me obviously, mentioning the fact that I did have a valid permit displayed, attaching my photo's as evidence?

Fruitcake

agh100 wrote: »

I have received the NTK now for the PCN above.

So I just appeal using the template on here, modifying it for me obviously, mentioning the fact that I did have a valid permit displayed, attaching my photo's as evidence?

No! You appeal as KEEPER and say the DRIVER had a valid permit in place.


Do not use I in your appeal. Go back and read the NEWBIES thread until you understand what you are being asked to do here. Use ALL the appeal points in the template and an additional point that a permit was displayed. You have a few weeks from the date you received the NTK so use the time wisely.

Herzlos

Don't name the driver.

Just say "The driver had a valid permit displayed, which can be proven".

They'll give it a cursory glance, reject it, and give you a POPLA code.

agh100

ok, can someone check this is ok to send off..
I have used the template but added points a) and b)


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The driver had a valid permit displayed, which can be proved in the attached photo’s. The photo’s enclosed, show the permit is clearly visible. Photo 1 is your own photo, where you can just about make out the permit and corresponds to the other photo’s taken in daylight (with date/ time shown)
b). The lease of the property mentions no rules stipulating cars must display a permit. No variation in the terms of the lease have been agreed by the residents, there is therefore no valid contract between yourselves and the land/ lease holder
c). The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term.
d) The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. As the ParkingEye v Beavis case is pending a hearing at the Supreme Court, your position is effectively likely to be stayed until 2016 if you try to pursue this matter so I invite you to cancel the PCN now.
e). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land. I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing model.
f). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
g). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is to deter.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter and I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA, which is the only ADR with a scrutiny panel where it is seen to be independent. Any other alternative will not be considered.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract. You have failed to meet the statutory requirements for information served in advance by durable medium.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,

ampersand

Some tweaks and corrections - await others' input.
#
To Whom It May Concern

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as Registered Keeper of [reg.no.], on these grounds:

a). The driver had a valid permit displayed, as evident in the attached photograph A. The permit is clearly visible. This corresponds to the others taken in daylight with date/ time shown.
Photo 1 is your own photo, with the permit just visible, due to your operative's camera angle.

b). The lease of the property contains no rules stipulating cars must display a permit. No variation in the terms of the lease have been agreed by the residents. Ipso facto, there is no valid contract between your company and the landowner or lease holder.

c). As there is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land, I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing business model.

d) The sum claimed is disproportionate and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term.

e) The sum claimed is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. As the ParkingEye v Beavis case is pending a Hearing at the Supreme Court, your effective options to pursue this matter are likely to be stayed until 2016.
I therefore invite you to cancel PCN [no.] now.

f). Your unenforceable invoice fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

g). Your signs, non-compliant as they are, were not seen. Upon inspection, their wording is ambiguous, showing the purpose of your business model is to deter and deceive motorists into believing they have incurred a 'penalty'.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn from this. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge.
I suggest you uphold this challenge now or, alternatively, send a rejection letter including a valid POPLA no. I will communicate further only if you include this POPLA no., which is the only ADR with a scrutiny panel seen to be independent. No alternative will be considered.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer

The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your specious junk mail, deliberately designed to mimic a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15.

Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer.

I remind you of your duty to mitigate any loss and invite you to withdraw your spurious charge within 35 days without further expense.
Do this and I will not pursue you for my costs.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract.

I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations you believe were implied now end. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations now apply to every consumer contract. You have failed to meet the statutory requirements for information served in advance by durable medium.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,[/QUOTE]

Coupon-mad

Either version is fine. Astonished you read the template and NEWBIES thread advice and thought it would be OK to then destroy your best appeal point, by telling them whose permit it was - phew! The whole point of the template is to STOP people doing that. Stop people giving away who was driving/parked.

The reason why is because (among other points) you will be arguing at POPLA 'no keeper liability' and pointing out the flaws in the NTK. So that's your next task after appealing, to compare the NTK to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 which is linked in the newbies thread for that very reason.

No NTK is fully compliant. Don't post here that 'it looks OK'. It doesn't/it won't be.

agh100

yeah I was aware not to identify myself, just typed it in the wrong way on here.
I will get it sent off shortly and await the likely response.

agh100

so just about to post this one off.

on the letter from UK CPM, it says to include my name, address, name and address of driver (if different), vehicle registration and notice reference number.

Which of these should I include?
And do I sign it, with my name printed underneath or just put a squiggle?

thanks

Redx

all except the drivers details, unless you are actually naming the driver ?

add a squiggle

get a free certificate of posting at the PO as well (dont just drop it in a letterbox)

agh100

nope, not naming the driver.

ok will add my details as the registered keeper and get a certificate of posting.

thanks