Motorbike Flash Park Ticket.

Ralph-y

may I please ask ....

how does one display a permit on a motorbike ?

Ralph:cool:

nickham

Hey.... just found this picture that the parking attendant took.... see the sign in the background.... do you still think I can get away with not paying it by going to Popla???

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2dj2qhf/9
(change hxxp to http)

Coupon-mad

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2dj2qhf&s=9#.VvqpYPkrLIU

Get away without paying it? This isn't a real fine to 'get away with'. We would not be telling you to pay even if you lose at POPLA, even if you had a PCN from a firm which doesn't offer POPLA. We would still say do not pay and suggest other ways to contest and complain about it.

There is no 'getting away with it' mindset here, except to say that these firms get away with daylight robbery every day.

The sign is in a flowerbed and not beside those bollards, and this is a place where bikes can park (show in your POPLA evidence the picture of pushbikes parked). You should be saying the sign is in a flowerbed, not on the road beside the bollards, was not seen because it is stupidly placed - not somewhere which looks like it might be a traffic sign - and cannot be read in the signage evidence anyway. No terms were agreed, no contract, and bikes do park here (show proof) with nothing to distinguish what type of bike can park there for customers of Sainsburys.

Read other POPLA appeals, there is more to include, standard stuff so read some from the first ten or twenty pages of this forum. You will see a pattern, use it.

Then show us your draft. Stop thinking you are guilty of something!

Fruitcake

nickham wrote: »

Hey.... just found this picture that the parking attendant took.... see the sign in the background.... do you still think I can get away with not paying it by going to Popla???

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2dj2qhf/9
(change hxxp to http)

Where is the PPC's evidence showing your M/C VRN and their signage? That picture shows a motorbike with no identifying marks. Unless the parking scumpany have any other photo' evidence they will have a hard time proving who it belonged to.

nickham

"Stop thinking you are guilty of something!"

You are completely right.... somehow I'm feeling guilty but of course I'm not. I have started reading a few and started righting a draft... I'm really really busy at the moment so if it takes me a few days thats not going to cause a problem is it? Also I'm trying to get proof that I went to Sainsbury's presuming that will help? Also will possibly prove that I was within the 10 minute time frame (for reading signs and leaving again).

nickham

thats the only one of the 3 that I posted.... just wanted to show the sign...
the other two are the side and back (see below)
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/1g2jq8/9
hxxp://tinypic.com/r/65q0is/9

Fruitcake

http://tinypic.com/r/1g2jq8/9

http://tinypic.com/r/65q0is/9

fisherjim

nickham wrote: »

"Stop thinking you are guilty of something!"

You are completely right.... somehow I'm feeling guilty but of course I'm not. I have started reading a few and started righting a draft... I'm really really busy at the moment so if it takes me a few days thats not going to cause a problem is it? Also I'm trying to get proof that I went to Sainsbury's presuming that will help? Also will possibly prove that I was within the 10 minute time frame (for reading signs and leaving again).

If you want to know what sort of Muppets you are dealing with they invented the talking parking ticket:rotfl::

http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/world-s-first-talking-parking-ticket_54817

http://www.flashpark.co.uk/private-parking-tickets/talking.php

Though I think it was more a publicity gimick from them to get noticed by prospective customers.

nickham

Hi everyone again... I'm trying to plow through my draft between my busy schedule.... I have done this so far.... next bit to follow

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor proportionate or commercially justifiable.

The motorcycle was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident. Additionally Flash Park’s 3 digital photographs of the motorcycle in situ demonstrate vacant space nearby and around me so no denial of revenue can be claimed.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

Flash Park’s charges are outrageously disproportionate, indeed punitive in nature and intent. Moreover the charges are entirely unjustifiable from a commercial perspective, other than merely to charge as much money as they think they can get away with.

nickham

Next Bit:

4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner

Flash Park has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Flash Park to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park (the local council do) and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Flash Park are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Flash Park to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this outrageous sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.