BPA couldn't help on a ZZPS parking ticket

pappa_golf

CM the offence stated is "parked without displaying"




getting close to trying to obtain monies by deception as the offence of not displaying a ticket is NOT a bylaw offence

shug1565

Thanks. Yeah, was rushing to a train and forgot to send the txt message.

What if they pursue it in court within six months time? They still have about 3 months, so I think it's possible. I am expecting a letter from Wright Hassall as said in their last letter.

Do I have a case here in court? Any similar case before? Sticking a ticket to windscreen is not a secured way of delivering a notice. It's just not right that I need to pay for the extra penalty because someone else removed the ticket or it fell of the windscreen due to heavy rain. And also they didn't give me the chance to appeal saying it's too late.

Coupon-mad

Didn't see that. Yep, that's not a byelaw offence.

pappa_golf

you should now play ping pong by second class mail , asking a lot of silly questions and awaiting a lot of stupid answers , then re ask , , at least 4 weeks to send , receive and ponder .


do NOT admit that you know this is a !!!! up , ask for links to bylaws , ask what perfume there wives are wearing , just , babble on like a confused person


then at 6 mths , tell them to do one.

HO87

There are so many things obviously adrift with this that its almost difficult to know where to start.

Firstly, there is no requirement under the byelaws that a Notice to Owner is given and so arguably this is a misrepresentation of authority - and ZZPS have none in any event.

As ZZPS allege that this is a byelaws matter then POFA does not apply - indeed it is completely irrelevant. Land covered by byelaws is not and cannot be "relevant land" for the purposes of POFA.

The only offences that can be committed under the byelaws are those committed by the driver and, as has already been pointed out, this doesn't include a "fail to display" offence (another misrepresentation of authority?). And guess what? They have no idea who the driver is.

An owner may be liable to pay a penalty (provided the amount sought is clearly displayed in the are at the time). However, that is in respect of the self-same offences as may be committed by a driver. There is no more an offence of "failing to display" for which the owner/keeper is liable than there is for the driver. Another misrepresentation of authority?

This is just a shameless attempt to get at your money and so entralled by the effort of trying to do that Meteor have handed it off to ZZPS?

Don't write too quickly - after a fortnight is quick enough.

If they were ever to issue proceedings under the byelaws then the outline requirements of PACE apply which means that you must be given an opportunity to answer to the offence promptly. But that means that they have to get the right offence - so don't go trying to correct them too quickly.

Besides, I thought that making an allegation of an offence that doesn't exist was an abuse of process?

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Says cheques to ZZPS so this isn't a real penalty, it's the usual hybrid mess.

I disagree. It's not a "hybrid" mess at all. It says Penalty all over it, and quoting Byelaws, not even a hint of it actually being a PPC playing fast and loose with the law. IMO it's as pappa golf says, plain illegal.

HO87

We happily bandy around terms like "illegal" and "unlawful" and the problem with such terms in a commercial setting is that the people who churn out these letters believe that they have the right/authority to do so. This effectively stymies any criminal intent because inevitably there has to be an element of dishonesty. Proving illegality here is a none starter for this reason. Could we report it to Trading Standards? Yes, but should we expect any action as a result? No. So don't look for it.

As for how any action might be started here is rather interesting and should be exploited to maximum effect I suggest.

If and when Wright Hassall become involved they will be acting for ZZPS who in turn are acting for Meteor who in turn are acting for Govia Thameslink. Putting in the periodic letter should do nothing other than cause complete confusion. The one thing we can be certain of is that Wright Hassall are so far divorced from the actual decision-maker who mighthave the authority to press the prosecute button that no one will really know.

If ZZPS are mug enough to offer an appeal to them and then IAS then take the offer. Its all burning the fuse timewise.

Then, when WH get all bristly and start throwing threats of prosecution around (or will they?) they can be challenged to explain exactly who their client is and how it is that they have the authority to decide.

This could become quite entertaining. Although I appreciate that being on the receiving end it might look slightly different.

hoohoo

HO87 wrote: »

If ZZPS are mug enough to offer an appeal to them and then IAS then take the offer. Its all burning the fuse timewise.

I'll just qualify this. IAS offers 2 types of appeals, binding and non-binding. Only take up the offer if it is non-binding. As the IAS are provably either incompetent or biased it makes no sense to be bound by their decisions.