Windscreen ticket - PLEASE HELP!

Ralph-y

you have just had advice that .... IMHO .....no solicitor / citizens advice / best mate down at the pub .......... could ever give .............

you are so lucky that people like Coupon-mad give up there free time to help ....

carry on follow the advice and you will win ..

Ralph:cool:

alebazi

Yes, I know Ralph, I am very grateful to Coupon-mad who, indeed gave up free time during Christmas holidays and at night to help.

alebazi

Decision
Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant as no valid permit was on display.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has no landowner authority or standing to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. In addition the appellant has raised signage saying that it was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant states that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has no landowner authority or standing to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. In addition the appellant has raised signage saying that it was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed. I acknowledge the appellant has raised numerous grounds of appeal however my appeal response will focus on signage. The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant as no valid permit was on display. The operator says that there are 100 signs, throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. The operator has provided landowner authority that states that there are 92 signs; this was recorded in 26 April 2014. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states “signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to read and understand”. The operator provided a copy of the signage at the site and what it should look like along with what the terms and conditions say. Based on the eight photographs provided as evidence by the operator I am not able to establish with any certainty what it the signs say. I am not satisfied, based on the evidence provided, that the appellant would have been able to see the signage and therefore would not be able to establish the terms and conditions. Accordingly this appeal should be allowed.


Thank you very very to all of you who helped me through this entire process particularly to Coupon-mad who did the hard work. What would I've done without you?!

Redx

well done m8

please post the same info and the name of the PPC in the POPLA DECISIONS thread at the top of the forum, maybe add a link to this thread too, in case others need the same advice

well done to CM and yourself who stuck with it

amazing that they can have up to 100 signs that are gobbledegook

Coupon-mad

Alebazi can you tell us the POPLA code now it's over please? And the Assessor's name?

You are safe to say now on this thread (I don't take pm's anyway).

I can think of a case today, where citing that decision to show POPLA what their Assessor should have said re the signs, would assist greatly. That's a great example of an Assessor who realises that even 90 - 100 signs doesn't mean there is evidence they can be clearly read.

If we could say 'In POPLA decision xxxxxxxxxx, Assessor Fred Blogs said...' then it has more clout than just saying 'some other decisions said this...'

alebazi

Here are the details Coupon-mad:

Verification Code
5963225583
Assessor Name
Eileen Ioannou

Coupon-mad

Fab, thanks, I will tell the other poster (who just lost at POPLA but shold not have done, with two big errors missed by an Assessor).

Well done for trusting us, so glad you won!