PCN Radisson Blu Stansted

Elysander

Hi all,

I have just received a PCN from Parking Eye from Radisson Blu Stansted (under 15 minutes). I've read the Newbies section and note that this PCN makes no mention of POFA 2012 as the date of event and date issued are 16 days apart. I want to appeal this, and wanted to confirm if the 'newbies blue text appeal' minus the reference to POFA 2012 is the best way to proceed.

Thanks

Redx

if it failed POFA2012 then if you are the keeper you are not liable and they should chase the driver (oh wait , they dont know who that was so are mithering you instead, hoping you will trip up)

use the template letter as is, the fact they are not using POFA doesnt mean that its not relevant, its your first appeal point of many

no pofa , not liable, on your bike MR PPC

but you still have to go through the tedious process because they wont want to back off until told to do so by ADR or a judge

Fruitcake

Elysander wrote: »

Hi all,

I have just received a PCN from Parking Eye from Radisson Blu Stansted (under 15 minutes). I've read the Newbies section and note that this PCN makes no mention of POFA 2012 as the date of event and date issued are 16 days apart. I want to appeal this, and wanted to confirm if the 'newbies blue text appeal' minus the reference to POFA 2012 is the best way to proceed.

Thanks

As above, NO! Use the template exactly as it is. It has been written by the UK's foremost expert on private parking issues. Don't change the tried and tested process.

Coupon-mad

Absolutely include the POFA wording - why miss that out? Flipping heck that'll win it later at POPLA!

Often PE use a shorter version PCN when they miss the 15 days. You are lucky, you have a nailed-on win at POPLA stage as long as you don't forget this appeal point in your submission later on. Of course, you will be putting together a full POPLA appeal like the examples in the NEWBIES thread, but with the fact that the PCN was posted too late and does not have the usual POFA wording, so as keeper, you cannot be liable in law and the driver has never been identified. SLAM DUNK WIN.

Elysander

Thanks Coupon Mad - much appreciated!

Coupon-mad

Expect PE to write and beg to be told who was driving when they see your appeal. I've seen them do that several times before, when they've had to use a non-POFA PCN due to the late timing and then the keeper scuppers their little game by not telling them who was driving in the appeal. It's all a game and in this one, you have the ace card.

IGNORE that letter if they ask who the driver was; have a chuckle at their desperation. Just wait and some time after your appeal you will get a rejection letter and POPLA code anyway. Compare notes with this poster, same sort of PCN, same sort of POPLA appeal win beckons you both in the end:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5409530

HTH - easy one.

System

Is this a bylaws site? Seems to be from the map

paulstevens64

Hi All


Just a note to say that I won at Popla with a Parking Eye case at this site.

PE did not provide a copy of their contract with the landowner. I have posted my victory on the Popla appeals thread.

catfunt

paulstevens64 wrote: »

Hi All


Just a note to say that I won at Popla with a Parking Eye case at this site.

PE did not provide a copy of their contract with the landowner. I have posted my victory on the Popla appeals thread.

To the OP - There's your answer.
Follow the advice given to you on here by the regulars and you will beat this.

Elysander

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hi all,

I've now received a valid POPLA code and will be submitting a full appeal, including no keeper liability due to the late delivery of PE's pcn (which is the shortened version without the usual POFA wording) . Please can someone advise if GPEOL should still be included as one of the appeal points as I've recently read posts from highly regarded forum members who feel this is now a severely weakened appeal point. that some assessors appear to be singling out to reject an appeal, even though other appeal points are made.

Thanks
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Not 'GPEOL' as such but you should set out to distinguish the case from PE v Beavis, from the outset. Cases have been ignored when this is argued to POPLA later (at rebuttal stage) but that doesn't mean it should not be argued in the first instance.

Everything needs including at this point: no keeper liability, no ladnowner authority, unreadable signs sparsely placed/unlit (being very careful not to imply who parked/was driving). It's vital in your case only to write as the keeper because 'no keeper liability' will be your winning point I expect.