Uncle Henry's PCN

Redx

just look at other 2015 popla xamples and then plagiarise them into your own extra appeal that will need to be submitted asap

you have already given popla and UKCPM too much info with the "me , myself and I" bit, with little reference to the legal issues the assessor will adjudicate on

so concentrate on the not a gpeol , no contract , poor signage , also adding the bit in BLUE by coupon-mad about Beavis from the NEWBIES sticky thread

3 or 4 bullet points and explanations are ample

here are some popla examples for inspiration

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15

also get a complaint in to the landowner quoting the EQUALITY ACT 2010 and insist they get the charge cancelled too , or a counter claim in court may be forthcoming, which is a minimum £500 loss for them

The_Deep

You have been conned by a UK registered company whose main income stream are suckers, the stupid, and the gullible. The only way to beat them is to use the Law. Judges are not stupid, they recognise a bad apple when they see one, just do as people here advise, do not try to reason with them. It matters not really who was driving, all thsat matters is, did your wullful and malicious behaviour cost them the money they claim.

In my opinion, you can safely ignore them, if they are daft enough to take the matter to court, a Judge will find in your favour.

ColliesCarer

Hi Grandad123,

Re a GPEOL point - it's not as hard as you might think.
Make sure you include it

You have already raised it in effect in your appeal with these words "I feel the £100 charge is wholly inappropriate to the so called offence and is purely punitive"

You just need to expand on that point and use the legal terminology that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - see the examples in the link Redx gave you and include this wording from the NEWBIES thread post number 3 as also advised.

"The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case."


Re the PPC's contract with the landowner
You don't have to get any info nor do you need to do the parking company's job for them - just make the challenge and require the PPC to produce an un-redacted contract.

It's for the PPC to prove they do have the legal standing to levy charges and pursue payment for them through the courts in their own name.

Very few PPC's have been given the required assignment of rights. (Parking Eye - one of the most litigious companies loses POPLA's on this very point regularly)

Grandad123

Blimey you guys certainly take this seriously and I appreciate your help. When I've composed my revised appeal I will post it up for your comments. It might take a couple of days as I need to get a good copy of the BB off old Henry without him being identified if possible. I've got to take him shopping Monday so better be careful with the parking. I'm beginning to feel like a barrack room lawyer.
It occurs to me this parking business must give employment to hundreds of people let alone all the time you guys invest in helping us victims. Without these !!# PPC's the unemployment figures would go up and you could spend more time gardening. Whatever happened to Eric Pickles I thought he was going to sort these dodgy PPC's out.

Redx

replaced in the recent cabinet reshuffle ( you do know we had an election ? lol ), although his public survey was completed last month

The Rt Hon Greg Clark was appointed Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 11 May 2015

yes this is serious stuff, so needs treating seriously , so uch so it was on watchdog and dont get done get dom recently too

Iceweasel

Grandad123 wrote: »

Blimey you guys certainly take this seriously and I appreciate your help. When I've composed my revised appeal I will post it up for your comments. It might take a couple of days as I need to get a good copy of the BB off old Henry without him being identified if possible. I've got to take him shopping Monday so better be careful with the parking. I'm beginning to feel like a barrack room lawyer.
It occurs to me this parking business must give employment to hundreds of people let alone all the time you guys invest in helping us victims. Without these !!# PPC's the unemployment figures would go up and you could spend more time gardening. Whatever happened to Eric Pickles I thought he was going to sort these dodgy PPC's out.

Yes - this is very serious stuff.

Countless people are being conned and ripped-off every single day.

Cameron's government are doing precious little to help.

As for The Rt Hon Sir Eric (Mr Potato Head) Pickles - he achieved little and is now gone from any serious position of influence.

He was the Communities and Local Government Secretary and what he targeted were the council parking fines - I can't recall him being at all vociferous on Private Parking Companies misdeeds.

He was the Shadow Transport Minister for a while back in Labour Government days and achieved little then also.

Pickles has of course been replaced by The Rt Hon Greg Clark CBE MP who has yet to make his position on parking tickets clear.

Perhaps like Mr Pickles he too might have a 'dreadful experience' with a parking ticket and wake up to the reality of parking in today's Britain and hopefully stay in office long enough between cabinet re-shuffles to do something about it.

The present Secretary of State for Transport is one Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP - who's ability to manage any transport problems must surely be pretty good, as his background is in agriculture and coal-mining.

But of course as he's been an MP for the last 29 years he's an expert on everything.

nigelbb

The PPC insists that the driver entered into a contract by reading the signs. In that case what is no the signs is everything. The sign said something like "Blue Badge Holders Only" it did NOT say "Blue Badge must be displayed. That's it. End of. The driver did not breach the contract so their claim is spurious.

Grandad123

Hi all. Right, this is a draft of what I am thinking of submitting as an addition to my POPLA appeal.
The preamble might be irrelevant as their system will hopefully attach it to the original.
Its a bit wordy but that's me I'm afraid.




POPLA Draft Evidence


I would like to submit the additional follow up evidence regarding my appeal against the parking charge notice No xxxx issued by CPM . Your verification code xxxxx


Relevant Documents

• Car Park Signage showing Parking Restrictions. (attached)
• Photo showing blue badge wallet on dashboard. (attached)
• Photo of confirmation of doctors appointment. (attached)
• Photo of current BB. (attached)

Alleged Infringement


The respondent alleges that on the 29th May 2015 the driver of the vehicle RJ10 NVT, of which I am the registered keeper, did not display a valid Blue Badge in the windscreen in contravention of the Terms and Conditions displayed.


They also state for the BB scheme to be effective the badge must be displayed at all times.


Appellants appealing points

• In the Terms and Conditions displayed the only mention of Blue Badges is that the holders should park in the appropriate bays. There is no mention of having to display the badge in the windscreen only that the user must be a BB holder. I therefore provide proof that the holders’ badge was valid and there was an appointment with the doctor at the time of the alleged offence. The appellant therefore met the criterion of the parking restriction.
• The signage is confusing as there are signs with different wording in the same area. The ‘Contract’ the appellant has agreed would therefore be dependent on which sign he read. In the evidence presented by the appellant the image is of the sign at the entrance to the doctors’ surgery.
• The signage does not indicate that CPM have a contract to issue Parking Charge Notices on behalf of the Landowner.
• As I understand it Blue Badges are not valid on Private Parking sites but are intended mainly for Council use. A Blue Badge is not proof of disability as such. The Independent Scrutiny Board is of the view that the Equality Act 2010 imposes on the car park operator a requirement to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of a disabled person. The demanding of the display of a blue badge is therefore unfair.
• The photographic evidence supplied by CPM of the appelants windscreen is very misleading as it does not show the BB in its wallet under the windscreen. It must have been visible to the parking warden as it was about 4” from the PCN, but the photo provided by CPM suggests the windscreen is empty.
• The photographic evidence of the car in situ is very misleading as it is does not show that all the other disability bays are empty. There was therefore no loss of Disabled Parking facilities.

• "The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area.It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

• I feel the £100 charge is wholly inappropriate to the so called offence and is purely punitive.

The numberings gone a bit haywire but I will sort that.
Also the text seems to have gone weird when I posted it and some spaces have gone. Honest guys it wasn't me.

Umkomaas

It's ok as far as it goes, but would be much bolstered by other additions. The below are a list of points to consider for inclusion. Not all will be appropriate, and you may have already included some.

1. No keeper liability (but you need to check the NtK for correct dates and all requirements of PoFA have been included)
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy (if appropriate)
7. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)

You've got the final 'charge is unconscionable ...', good, but you need to bump it up a bit to be sure of making the right impact.

Grandad123

Hi Umkomas. I don't know what happened with the download I guess my Word doc has some codes embedded in it that the forum site didn't recognise.


Thanks for the comments and I will firm it up before I submit it to POPLA.


I am assuming the evidence CPM will submit to POPLA will be the same as they sent to me after my appeal to them. POPLA have said CPM should send me their evidence but I don't want to wait for them. They will probably say they have sent it already.


I hope the appeal is successful as I have promised to 'save' Henry £100 so he can update his hearing aids. He would have made a great witness if it went to court, the case would have lasted weeks.


With all the effort we have put in to refute this charge I am beginning to think I should have gone along with Henry's first option which was to pop down to Brighton and test his Zimmer frame against those BMWs in the CPM car park, if they have one. The old Dunkirk spirit is still there.


Will post result when available