Windscreen PCN for obstruction - highview

Danmckenna21

The driver of a vehicle for which I am the registered keeper received a windscreen ticket from highview under the grounds of obstruction and no permit.
They have parked there before without an issue, and nothing was actually being obstructed. In fact they took that space after someone left from there
No obstruction was caused; he was parked parallel to a skip for an hour on Friday night outside of a bay
The sign only mentions parking in bays for a certain amount of time, nothing about outside of them or obstructions .

I've read lots of threads and lots of other websites but can't find any clear advice with regards to obstruction and Parking outside of bays I've tried contacting the manager of the property it was on but he isn't in til Monday.

I myself am a student and can barely afford to pay it as it is, let alone deal with the stress of back and forth emails, appeals and threats of court action and debt collectors.

Can someone please advise if I have valid grounds to appeal as stated in the newbies sticky. By writing to them with the pre written responses as well as adding the bits specific to my case?

Thank you.

fisherjim

Of course you should appeal follow the newbies thread, meanwhile get back to the landowner Monday and get him to get it cancelled, and fight Highview who are a bunch of moronic, useless Muppets anyway!

Fruitcake

Read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES at the top of the main page and appeal AS KEEPER using the template letter therein, exactly as it is.

Send the appeal around day 21-25 from the date of the windscreen ticket. The nearer you can get it to that Highview appeal deadline date the better. If by post, you need to be a bit earlier. Send first class from a Post Office (NOT recorded/special delivery) and get a free certificate of posting. (The Sir-Sticky-Foot is very important as it is accepted as a legally binding proof that it arrived the next working day.) If online then the working day before the appeal is better.


Don't worry if the initial appeal is rejected by Highview, they must provide a PoPLA code so you can them make a second stage appeal and get this quashed.


Do not pay, do not ignore, do not reveal who was driving, do not miss the appeal deadline, never, ever 'phone a parking scumpany.

Danmckenna21

The disabled person was an occupant of the car. I've already read the newbies thread I just wasn't certain if it applied to my situation.
How often is it sent to POPLA, and how often to they accept the appeal? If they don't accept it what is the likelihood of me having to pay more than the £85/50 charge?

Danmckenna21

Also from what I've gathered, waiting three weeks is only because that's the time they send me a reminder and it nullifies it if they don't.
If this is the case, then surely that's very rare? With Christmas coming up, as well as my exams and this is simply one extra thug to worry about I was planning on sending it out on Monday depending on what the manager said.
Would doing it so soon discredit me in anyway?

Danmckenna21

I just spoke to someone who works for the company that owned the land. Would not put me through to the manager yet said that the driver was parked for over an hour and they have proof of this on cctv. As well as him entering and exiting the car on his own.
Are there still valid grounds to appeal here?

fisherjim

Danmckenna21 wrote: »

I just spoke to someone who works for the company that owned the land. Would not put me through to the manager yet said that the driver was parked for over an hour and they have proof of this on cctv. As well as him entering and exiting the car on his own.
Are there still valid grounds to appeal here?

You are overthinking this follow what you are being told and stop thinking yours is a different case to the thousands on here.

If you go outside the advice on here you stand the chance of messing up.
And where on the signage does it state that the disabled person has to alight the vehicle?

Your aim, if the landowner will not play game is to get a POPLA code and then kick the Muppets that stuck the piece of unofficial scrap paper on your car an expense they have to pay not you, and kick them into touch on a technicality.

Also if that is your real name and age you are leaving yourself wide open on here!

Danmckenna21

Would I be able to send the appeal letter in on Monday? I don't want to wait three weeks, especially with that falling around Christmas time? I was told about it by the driver on the night anyway

Umkomaas

Danmckenna21 wrote: »

Would I be able to send the appeal letter in on Monday? I don't want to wait three weeks, especially with that falling around Christmas time? I was told about it by the driver on the night anyway

Did you not understand this?

If you go outside the advice on here you stand the chance of messing up.

Guys_Dad

Danmckenna21 wrote: »

I just spoke to someone who works for the company that owned the land. Would not put me through to the manager yet said that the driver was parked for over an hour and they have proof of this on cctv. As well as him entering and exiting the car on his own.
Are there still valid grounds to appeal here?

"The driver was helping a disabled person to the car, who unfortunately did not have their badge on them or in the car to be used as the time. Yet it would be possible to send proof of keener ship of one. "

One think that really p****s me off is when we get untruths, lies, half-truths in Opening Posts.

Your initial post suggested that you were helping a disabled person to and from the vehicle in question and that this was a relatively short period, although it didn't actually say so in so many words. Now we have the cctv saying no disabled person and over an hour's parking.

The strategy to help the first case differs from the second and, since you do not deny the cctv evidence, I am assuming it is correct.

You didn't need to concoct a story for help on here, but please at least give us the respect by laying out what really happened, rather than a sugar coated half truth. Wastes everybody's time and gets people's backs up, as you can tell.

Glassman

Guys_Dad wrote: »

"The driver was helping a disabled person to the car, who unfortunately did not have their badge on them or in the car to be used as the time. Yet it would be possible to send proof of keener ship of one. "

One think that really p****s me off is when we get untruths, lies, half-truths in Opening Posts.

Your initial post suggested that you were helping a disabled person to and from the vehicle in question and that this was a relatively short period, although it didn't actually say so in so many words. Now we have the cctv saying no disabled person and over an hour's parking.

The strategy to help the first case differs from the second and, since you do not deny the cctv evidence, I am assuming it is correct.

You didn't need to concoct a story for help on here, but please at least give us the respect by laying out what really happened, rather than a sugar coated half truth. Wastes everybody's time and gets people's backs up, as you can tell.

This.

If you don't want to play by a car park land owner's rules, don't use it.