So...

DCodd

matttye wrote: »

Yep I took my chances with a free space knowing full well it might not be long enough and got lucky. I could have quite easily gone and found a paid for car park which would have been given me more time.

Your point?

Your post came across as some kind of lecture or sermon from a supposed moral high ground.

matttye

DCodd wrote: »

Your post came across as some kind of lecture or sermon from a supposed moral high ground.

I'm not saying anyone's infallible, including myself. I'm just saying the majority of parking tickets could be avoided quite easily.

I appreciate and understand that some of them are issued wrongly but simple overstays can largely be avoided.

Computersaysno

One of the ways to beat a PE claim is to put them to the test wrt ANPR functionality and reliability.


Prankster has done a fantastic document doing just that. I know someone who went to POPLA on a single appeal point...namely "ANPR is unreliable" and WON.


We need to compile a list of such PE defeats [inc hopefully some at court], and these can then be used against them.


I accept that SCC wins are not binding...but in the absence of proof from PE it's difficult to see how they would get traction.

ManxRed

Computersaysno wrote: »

I know someone who went to POPLA on a single appeal point...namely "ANPR is unreliable" and WON.

We may need to rediscover whether POPLA will continue to uphold this now that there's a different set of people (Ombudsman Services) performing the service.

Its a good appeal point to investigate though, especially on overstays of under (say) 15 minutes.

trisontana

You can see why Parking Eye still need to be stopped in their tracks from the latest blog from Parking Prankster. He details yet another case of double dipping . Even though the premises concerned want the fake fine cancelled PE are refusing to do this. I hope the "legal team" can sleep soundly in their beds when they are pulling stunts like this:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/lord-neuberger-all-that-he-needed-was.html

alexmi

trisontana wrote: »

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/lord-neuberger-all-that-he-needed-was.html

Absolutely brilliant article, that.

arthurx1234

trisontana wrote: »

You can see why Parking Eye still need to be stopped in their tracks from the latest blog from Parking Prankster. He details yet another case of double dipping . Even though the premises concerned want the fake fine cancelled PE are refusing to do this. I hope the "legal team" can sleep soundly in their beds when they are pulling stunts like this:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/lord-neuberger-all-that-he-needed-was.html

Taken from article
Here is Lord Neuberger's advice:

ParkingEye has an appeals procedure, and the BPA Code of Practice provides at paragraph 13.4 for a reasonable grace period after the expiry of the fixed parking period. The appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge. And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA.

So the whole COP is binding??? surely not, but hope so!!
Arthur

The_Slithy_Tove

arthurx1234 wrote: »

Taken from article
Here is Lord Neuberger's advice:

... And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA.

So the whole COP is binding??? surely not, but hope so!!
Arthur

If PE are going to throw the Beavis judgement around to justify their charges, which I am certain they will, then what's wrong with throwing that judgement straight back in their face? Even (!) PE fail to comply fully with the CoP much of the time (e.g. failing to acknowledge an appeal within 14 days), so it's an easy rebuttal.

ManxRed

arthurx1234 wrote: »

Taken from article
Here is Lord Neuberger's advice:

ParkingEye has an appeals procedure, and the BPA Code of Practice provides at paragraph 13.4 for a reasonable grace period after the expiry of the fixed parking period. The appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge. And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA.

So the whole COP is binding??? surely not, but hope so!!
Arthur

It is, yes. Sadly the BPA and the DVLA don't particularly care though.

It needs testing with a judge, but it'll be a braver person than me I fear.

Computersaysno

ManxRed wrote: »

We may need to rediscover whether POPLA will continue to uphold this now that there's a different set of people (Ombudsman Services) performing the service.

That should be easy enough to do. If someone with an open case [not yet appealed to POPLA] wants to PM me, I can find someone who will be willing to appeal to new-POPLA on that single point with them as the 'driver'.