Parking notice not fully in bay (but not across a second)

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears

Yes, I am a newbie and yes I have sent several hours reading this and other websites such as pepipoo before posting. My car was parked last week in a railway station car park (Meteor) - the ticket and term 'parking notice' means I am sure this is a POPLA job. The car was just over the white line but was not straddling a second space (it was the end of a row). Two questions (1) what advantage is there in waiting circa 21 days before appealing - is there any reason other than to annoy Meteor/make them pay to find the keeper's details? (Mine is £100 but £60 if paid in 14 days). (2) never having had a parking ticket of any sort before is this wording okay for my letter of appeal? NB I did pay to park, the 'parking notice' is for a bay infringement:

Izzard Towers
Bucks

Date 5th December 2015

Dear Sirs

Re: Parking Notice ABC 123456789 - Not parked fully within a marked bay/designated area

I challenge this 'Parking Notice' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

As I understand it a contravention has not occurred. The only interpretation of a requirement for a motorist to park fully within bay markings must be to ensure that parking is controlled within the car park. Without such a restriction some drivers might park in such a way as to occupy 2 bays or block the internal routes within the car park.

But this is not the situation here. As I understand it the car was parked at the end of a row of spaces and it would have been more or less impossible the car encroached over the space to the left given there is a concrete pillar between the spaces. I understand the car was parked close to the front of the space but not over the white line. There is no parking space to the right and I assume that if the rear of the car was overhanging it would have been by a de minimis amount only.

If you check any photographs taken you will hopefully accept these representations and cancel the ‘parking notice’.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

In summary, as I understand it the car did not obstruct other drivers from parking in adjacent bays and it did not block any internal routes.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


EIE

Thank you very much for any help offered, much appreciated.

The_Slithy_Tove

I believe that the thinking behind appealing the Notice to Driver and not awaiting the Notice to Keeper is down to this bit in the Protection of Freedoms Act:

6 (1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

In other words, the NtK must be sent, even if the NtD is appealed. Most PPCs won't send out the NtK if they get an appeal in first. They assume the appeal is from the driver, so they know who to chase. But it doesn't have to be (hence appealing as keeper, even if that gives away the fact that the keeper knows who the driver was, else how did they find out about the NtD), and the whole piece of legislation is so sloppily written (and the PPCs so poor at correctly using it), that it makes it relatively simple to have them fail to get all their ducks in a row.

Now, why not use the standard template from the NEWBIES thread, seeing as you say you've read up on the matter.

One other thing. Does the ticket or the signage talk about Railway Byelaw 14 at all?

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears

Thank you for the rapid response. The ticket does not mention Railway Byelaw 14, but I haven't yet read the full signage. Certainly the signs by the pay machines make no mention of the byelaw (but neither do they mention about parking fully in bays).


I did base my effort on the template but amended it slightly so it looked like I hade made an effort and removed the POFA 2012 bit as I didn't fully understand it. I thought the ticket so frivolous that I didn't need to be overly aggressive from the start. I did actually pay to park!

fisherjim

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears wrote: »

Yes, I am a newbie and yes I have sent several hours reading this and other websites such as pepipoo before posting. My car was parked last week in a railway station car park (Meteor) - the ticket and term 'parking notice' means I am sure this is a POPLA job. The car was just over the white line but was not straddling a second space (it was the end of a row). Two questions (1) what advantage is there in waiting circa 21 days before appealing - is there any reason other than to annoy Meteor/make them pay to find the keeper's details? (Mine is £100 but £60 if paid in 14 days). (2) never having had a parking ticket of any sort before is this wording okay for my letter of appeal? NB I did pay to park, the 'parking notice' is for a bay infringement:

Izzard Towers
Bucks

Date 5th December 2015

Dear Sirs

Re: Parking Notice ABC 123456789 - Not parked fully within a marked bay/designated area

I challenge this 'Parking Notice' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

As I understand it a contravention has not occurred. The only interpretation of a requirement for a motorist to park fully within bay markings must be to ensure that parking is controlled within the car park. Without such a restriction some drivers might park in such a way as to occupy 2 bays or block the internal routes within the car park.

But this is not the situation here. As I understand it the car was parked at the end of a row of spaces and it would have been more or less impossible the car encroached over the space to the left given there is a concrete pillar between the spaces. I understand the car was parked close to the front of the space but not over the white line. There is no parking space to the right and I assume that if the rear of the car was overhanging it would have been by a de minimis amount only.

If you check any photographs taken you will hopefully accept these representations and cancel the ‘parking notice’.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

In summary, as I understand it the car did not obstruct other drivers from parking in adjacent bays and it did not block any internal routes.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


EIE

Thank you very much for any help offered, much appreciated.

Your have appealed assuming that the PPC is a reasonable company that will read it, apply common decency, fairness, logic, accept that people make mistakes and make a positive decision about your case.

You are totally wrong and naive, they exist for their own greed and only that reason, you should appeal using the template and forget any mitigation which will be totally ignored in favour of a rejection hoping for a cave in by you and a nice little earner for them without a fight!

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears

Thanks, so you suggest the following is preferable (at around 20 days)?


Izzard Towers 5/12/2015

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. 123456789

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have attached a scan of the the parking ticket I purchased [assuming I can find it].

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


Edward Izzard

fisherjim

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears wrote: »

Thanks, so you suggest the following is preferable (at around 20 days)?


Izzard Towers 5/12/2015

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. 123456789

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have attached a scan of the the parking ticket I purchased [assuming I can find it].

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,


Edward Izzard

So you have appealed as the keeper, then said;

"I have attached a scan of the the parking ticket I purchased"

This is why you are advised to not alter the template, you have outed yourself by adding to it!!

The_Slithy_Tove

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears wrote: »

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Assuming the car park was on railway land, then it becomes Not Relevant Land as far as POFA is concerned (because there are Byelaws in place, whether or not the TOC chooses to use them), and so they can't rely on POFA. Best not to mention it.

Better to say something along the lines of:
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me, the keeper. Therefore you must either take the matter up with the driver, cancel the charge, or provide a POPLA code.

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears

I don't know if it is railway land, although the "notice" says:
Meteor Parking Ltd
On behalf of Govia Thameslink Railway

pappa_golf

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears wrote: »

I don't know if it is railway land, although the "notice" says:
Meteor Parking Ltd
On behalf of Govia Thameslink Railway

On behalf of Govia Thameslink Railway

Eddie_Izzard's_Ears

But Thameslink is a train operating company and doesn't own any land. It doesn't necessarily mean all of its car parks are owned by Railtrack does it?

pappa_golf

well find out who owns the car park