UKCPS NtK received but Driver didn't get to see PCN on windscreen

Nikabella

Is the ISA route harder than the POPLA route?

I shall try to avoid getting distracted, sorry.

I have read the sticky thread. I read it when appealing my PE ticket & hadn't considered that this one didn't work the same so have just re-read it.

I guess I was trying to get a feel as to whether UKCPS are as litigious as PE & whether due to the Beavis situation if appealing was now mostly in vain. Also this is my first experience at ever getting a NtD type ticket.

Redx

its IAS , not ISA (ISA is a tax free savings account)

IAS is a kangaroo court with a low success rate and biased in favour of the parking companies

Beavis case is going to the SUPREME COURT on another appeal

this is nothing like a PE case

UKCPS issue about 800 court claims a year I believe

enfield_freddy

Nikabella wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean it wasn't allowed, just that it seemed in the favour of the PPC.

I'm not 100% sure I'm clear on the POPLA/IPC situation. Does the fact that it's UKCPS who are under the IPC mean that there's no POPLA route to go down? Does the RK have to appeal to the IPC instead if/when UKCPS reject the appeal?

note for future:


do not allow drunken passengers to eat pieces of yellow/white/black plastic that are placed on your car, next time they might be from the council or police.

Redx

Nikabella wrote: »

As it wasn't a car park that offered P&D or free parking for a limited time,

I'm not as sure what my points to argue on are other than GPEOL.

not a gpeol

poor signage

no contract with landowner

etc etc

ie:- the usual

now lets see what is in the template letter

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is extravagant and unconscionable when compared to local parking charges issued by the Council so cannot be justified.
b). 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.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

yep, all in there

ColliesCarer

Hi Nikabella,

To clarify

Two trade organisations
BPA that the likes of PE are a member of - offering POPLA
IPC which UKCPS are a member of - offering the "kangaroo" court of IAS

Two ticketing scenarios
No windscreen notice - Ntk must arrive within 15 days (from day of event)
Windscreen notice - Ntk must arrive no earlier than day 29 - no later than day 57 (from day of event)

One initial appeal scenario - use template in NEWBIES

Nikabella

I meant IAS, sorry. Typing whilst tired. Luckily I'm more clued up on savings accounts than parking charges!

Is it really worth challenging this then if IAS are known to be biased. To be honest, if it was still the reduced rate the RK would have been more inclined to pay it as the Crabman linked IAS stuff states some people have seen an appeal take 6 months?!

Yes, we shall keep better tabs on drunken passengers in future!

Redx

good explanation, exept for the typo

IPC which UKCPS are a member of - offering the "kangaroo" court of IAS

corrected , lol

Redx

Nikabella wrote: »

Is it really worth challenging this then if IAS are known to be biased.

some say yes, in case it goes to court, so you have something to show a judge

others say its a waste of time so ignore everything except an LBC or an MCOL

the choice is yours

Nikabella

I guess the point is, last time - with PE - the driver felt the situation was unjust as they were shopping at the associated retail park. This time the driver may not be able to feel the same as there was no such scenario....

Redx wrote: »

not a gpeol

poor signage

no contract with landowner

etc etc

ie:- the usual

now lets see what is in the template letter

yep, all in there

ColliesCarer

Redx wrote: »

good explanation, exept for the typo

corrected , lol

lol - had corrected but obviously not soon enough for your eagle eyes