PCN for Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited

Coupon-mad

Feeling_Very_Grumpy wrote: »

Well - I find your response amazing, Quentin. If you are truly saying that there is no point in appealing, what is the purpose of this thread in the forum - and of sending any letters at all? A waste of time and waste of a stamp. Why not just take this section of the forum down and advise people to part with their cash instead?

Wow, no need to jump to wrong conclusions. You have asked 'what is the point of sending a letter at all?' There is a clear point. It is to appear reasonable later on, should the PPC decide to take the matter to small claims. Judges might consider a person ignoring a charge as unreasonable. So one challenge (without naming the driver) is absolutely futile as an 'appeal' but has another, entirely different point to it.

Like a lot of newbies, you have mistaken 'there is no appeal worth trying' (Quentin is quite right to tell you that!) for: 'so you must pay up'!

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

You can certainly steer away from the template and write a reasonable response of your choice to the PPC - perfectly OK. Just don't imply who the driver was. In your case if you are 100% certain the lease co. won't pay when a second letter might arrive, then wait and see if the PPC writes to you or them next. I am VERY concerned because most lease firms WILL pay up upon a second letter...

Quentin

Feeling_Very_Grumpy wrote: »

.....Quentin said "appealing has no prospect of winning" - are you now changing your minds? ........

I explained to you the reason behind sending in the first appeal!

Although it will fail there is a good reason to do it otherwise we wouldn't have advised it!!

There is little difference between stopping and parking.

As previously advised it's your call whether you take the free advice you get.

And your argument you stopped and never "parked" is just semantics.

In fact you argue too much and this suggests to me you have an alternative agenda posting here.

For that reason I am out

pappa_golf

feeling very grumpy , go to google and type in JLA vcs , all those are cases where cars have stopped on the roadway at john lennon airport ,


the reason you have not been informed within 14 days:


1: its a lease car
2: VCS do not bother adhering to POPLa


now then , is your case any different to the thousands of postings on the web?

Redx

the template is correct, even if you cannot work out why

appealing to the PPC is correct, even if you cannot work out why

they dont use CCTV, that is an assumption on your part

private companies use ANPR cameras , not CCTV , which is why nothing was placed on the vehicle

if you want to know why you send in an appeal to the PPC, read other threads as its been discussed many times before and I answered it only today in another thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5493064

there are hundreds of airport threads on here where they involve "stopping on a private roadway" , so little or no difference and none of them are about "parking" and most of them are VCS (with some apcoa and a few others)

the private parking industry is unregulated so I doubt that any cctv legislation applies as its probably about council tickets (public , not private)

Feeling_Very_Grumpy

OK- I understand the difference now!!:j. Surely, though, I should be taking into account the fact that they have not proved I was stopped (by sending a single photograph of a car travelling down a road) - I was not sitting outside on a deckchair. Do they not need to be providing CCTV evidence from at least two time points showing that the vehicle had not moved during that period and should I not be asking for this when I write to seek further information? And again, what do I do about the fact that they have not yet contacted my employer (or me) directly, so the 14 day CCTV evidence period will be up? Is that not grounds for appeal in itself? Thank you

Feeling_Very_Grumpy

Thanks for that - but their letter clearly states that they use "Mobile Traffic Enforcement Cameras (CCTV)" - their own words

Redx

if this goes to civil court they would have to prove their case, they have 6 years to do so

I see nothing that relates to any 14 day window , its a private invoice and they have 6 years to go to court and enforce it under MCOL

the point is that its a honeytrap and now they have you ensnared they can do as they please until your day in court

its at that point the "cctv" or "anpr" cameras would be called into question

Feeling_Very_Grumpy

Thank you Redx. The Citizens Advice states "If you get a ticket after information is captured on CCTV and it's more than 14 days later ... If your car is captured on CCTV, an ATA parking company must by law get a parking ticket to you within 14 days, starting from the day after the parking incident took place. If you know you got the ticket later than this, you may be able to challenge the ticket for this reason." In my case the alleged offence was on 23 June, it's now 12 July and they haven't got the ticket to me because they don't know who I am . The only people they have contacted so far are my lease company. They have not yet directly written to my employer.

Redx

if this is VCS they do not follow POFA2012

as an IPC member there is nothing in the IPC CoP regarding the use of CCTV

all parking companies would like to know the drivers details , that is a given

VCS and IPC members work on the basis of assumption, that the keeper is the driver

pedantry aside, my assertion that only a court could sort the matter out is correct

one of your many defence points would be failure to comply with POFA2012, as keeper

ps:- you have failed to grasp the significance of the last part of post #1 of the NEWBIES sticky thread in relation to pofa (its not your car , so for all you know they have complied in getting an NTK to the hire company within 14 days)

Feeling_Very_Grumpy

Yes, it's VCS! I think I will pursue this further with Citizens Advice they clearly don't make the distinction between IPC and the other body (sorry can't recall their name) - but they are advising on the law (or not). Thanks for your help