Letter to PPC advice

Hogsta

Hi everyone,

I have a thread on pepipoo but the forum isn't working at the moment and the people on there have been very helpful so far but I'm not sure how long before the forum is up and running again. I just need some advice on a letter I am sending to the PPC.

The background is that I have a PCN that is for a car park that my vehicle wasn't even parked in. I received the NTK without any evidence from the PPC. I wrote telling I would need photographic proof of parking. They replied with photographs showing my car parked next to a electricity sub station. The car park they say I was parked in does not have such a substation. This is easily proved with google maps and I have taken my own photos.

I'm now at the ISA appeal stage and I know it is likely to be rejected but I thought it wise to go through the motions in case it ends up in court. However, despite it being only 9 days since the rejection letter from the PPC the IAS says I am out of time to appeal.

They way I see it I can now only write back to the PPC and this is what I would like advice on before I send it. I would be grateful for any comments you may have to improve my letter below. Thanks in advance.

Thank you for your correspondence of 12th January and supplying your photographic “evidence”.

I note your refusal to allow me to present my evidence to you directly. Despite it being very doubtful whether the IAS actually complies with schedule 3 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015, I did attempt an appeal through the IAS in accordance with your wishes.

According to the IPC, and yourselves, I have 21 days to lodge my appeal but, as can be seen by the enclosed screenshot, I was not allowed to complete my appeal as it was deemed to be out of date. For your information I attempted this just 9 working days after the 12th January.

As you have failed to provide adequate ADR I have no choice but to present my evidence to you directly.

Para 4 amended as per HO87 suggestions in Post #11

I believe my evidence is beyond doubt so, if you wish to take this further, you will have to instigate court proceedings. But please be aware that I will be asking for the court to award costs that I have incurred thus far and may incur in any further dealings on this matter.

System

Pepipoo lo-fi version for those that need the background

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t102880.html

You've not lost anything by missing an IAS appeal.

beamerguy

Hogsta wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I have a thread on pepipoo but the forum isn't working at the moment and the people on there have been very helpful so far but I'm not sure how long before the forum is up and running again. I just need some advice on a letter I am sending to the PPC.

The background is that I have a PCN that is for a car park that my vehicle wasn't even parked in. I received the NTK without any evidence from the PPC. I wrote telling I would need photographic proof of parking. They replied with photographs showing my car parked next to a electricity sub station. The car park they say I was parked in does not have such a substation. This is easily proved with google maps and I have taken my own photos.

I'm now at the ISA appeal stage and I know it is likely to be rejected but I thought it wise to go through the motions in case it ends up in court. However, despite it being only 9 days since the rejection letter from the PPC the IAS says I am out of time to appeal.

They way I see it I can now only write back to the PPC and this is what I would like advice on before I send it. I would be grateful for any comments you may have to improve my letter below. Thanks in advance.

Thank you for your correspondence of 12th January and supplying your photographic “evidence”.

I note your refusal to allow me to present my evidence to you directly. Despite it being very doubtful whether the IAS actually complies with schedule 3 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015, I did attempt an appeal through the IAS in accordance with your wishes.

According to the IPC, and yourselves, I have 21 days to lodge my appeal but, as can be seen by the enclosed screenshot, I was not allowed to complete my appeal as it was deemed to be out of date. For your information I attempted this just 9 working days after the 12th January.

As you have failed to provide adequate ADR I have no choice but to present my evidence to you directly.

Your photographs show my car next to a wooden fence. This fence in fact surrounds an electricity supply substation. Please note the “Danger of Death” signs. As can been seen by the enclosed photographs of the Iceland car park no such fence or substation exists. Clearly, this proves that my car was not parked in that particular car park and therefore there could not have been any breach of your terms and conditions.

I believe my case is proven beyond doubt so, if you wish to take this further you will have to instigate court proceedings. But please be aware that I will be asking for the court to award costs that I have incurred thus far and may incur in any further dealings on this matter.

A good letter. Trouble is you are dealing with IAS and its not certain that they have a good command of the english language or intelligence to understand.

1: You have proved you attempted to appeal within the time limit
IAS failed
2: You have proved from your own photo evidence that there is no sub station in the Iceland car park

Where do you think the picture by the PPC was taken. ??
Assume you agree it is your car
Who is the PPC ??

You need to get confirmation from Iceland that the sub station is not present.
If you suspect something, you should be contacting the DVLA as well david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

There is little point in contacting IPC because they are IAS, in other words, IPC pass to the next desk, that being IAS, the next desk across is Gladstones Solicitors a mixture of debt collectors and a solicitor, get the picture.

The DVLA is a very important contact as via IPC, they permit
the PPC to get keeper details.
And if you are very certain of your facts, such a story will be of interest to the Daily Mail
Editor letters@dailymail.co.uk

Marktheshark

I would instruct them to begin court proceedings.

Hogsta

Thanks for your replies.

The PPC is Excel Parking.

I have a screenshot of the rejection notice from the IAS website which I intend to include along with the other pictures.

It is my car but the photograph was taken when it was parked in another Excel controlled car park in the same town. The "offence" was not parking in a marked bay. But at that particular car park there are no marked bays. I have not brought this to the PPC attention as I didn't want to help them rectify their mistake. Besides, I figure that if I can prove their photograph couldn't possibly have been taken where they say it was, that would be sufficient grounds for a successful appeal. If not the IAS I'm sure a court would agree with me.

The Iceland car park is quite small and it is easy to get a good photo showing that there is no substation. Google maps has a good view also, and quite recent too.

beamerguy

Hogsta wrote: »

Thanks for your replies.

The PPC is Excel Parking.

I have a screenshot of the rejection notice from the IAS website which I intend to include along with the other pictures.

It is my car but the photograph was taken when it was parked in another Excel controlled car park in the same town. The "offence" was not parking in a marked bay. But at that particular car park there are no marked bays. I have not brought this to the PPC attention as I didn't want to help them rectify their mistake. Besides, I figure that if I can prove their photograph couldn't possibly have been taken where they say it was, that would be sufficient grounds for a successful appeal. If not the IAS I'm sure a court would agree with me.

The Iceland car park is quite small and it is easy to get a good photo showing that there is no substation. Google maps has a good view also, and quite recent too.

EXCEL, just another parking scammer

So you are saying that Excel took a picture in one car park AND the ticket stated another car park

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

EXCEL, just another parking scammer

So you are saying that Excel took a picture in one car park AND the ticket stated another car park

yes! however the OP should not state the car park , just leave them guessing


photographic evidence should be fun in court.

Ralph-y

Hi, the Parking Prankster might be interested in this one

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

drop him a line

keep it up

Ralph:cool:

Hogsta

beamerguy wrote: »

EXCEL, just another parking scammer

So you are saying that Excel took a picture in one car park AND the ticket stated another car park

Yes,but to be pedantic it was NTK that was wrong.

Coupon-mad

OK, the NTK is only really important if you have not said who was driving. I would send your letter to show you are not just lying down, and then wait and see if they try court in your case. Your case differs from Beavis and if the car wasn't where they say it was then that's a very solid defence point, among others.

HO87

You are providing far too much information in your letter.

It is the PPC who are making the allegation here and it is the company who are under an obligation to prove their case. You should not be doing anything whatsoever to assist them in this and by telling them exactly what mistake it is they have made you are doing precisely that.

I suggest that you change you proposed fourth paragraph to something closer to:

You allege that at <insert time and date> the driver of my vehicle was responsible for contravening the terms and conditions there displayed at <insert location> and assert that you have evidence of this contravention. It is my case that no such contravention occurred and I have incontrovertible evidence of my vehicle being elsewhere at the time.

Don't make it easy for them!