why not just ignore

DoaM

For clarity ... you sent TWO appeals, one for each PCN?

The_Deep

Has anyone mentioned, appealing a PCN costs the PPC money?

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Has anyone mentioned, appealing a PCN costs the PPC money?

No longer at POPLA now. Apparently if they don't contest the POPLA appeal by withdrawal, the fee to POPLA isn't payable.

There are some time costs in dealing with the initial appeal, but they no longer have to fork out as they had to previously with London Councils.

peter_the_piper

Shame.....

parkingwoes_2

parkingwoes wrote: »

The RK should appeal on no keeper liability - AFAIK APCOA do not rely on POFA in any case on their charges.
Refuse demands to name the driver.

Mr_Wal wrote: »

I
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

You were already told that APCOA do not rely on POFA so pointless stating they must rely on POFA 2012 in the template NEWBIE appeal.

The appeal is really not suitable for the PPCs who do not rely on the Act such as APCOA, HIGHVIEW, SMART, CEL, CP PLUS...

Mr_Wal

I sent one appeal but with the two PCN references on.

Redx

each one should have been appealed separately, with a different pcn number on them , even if the actual appeals were identical

Mr_Wal

I sent it again separately this time, not sure if that will help now. I will keep you informed of the reply I get. Fingers crossed!

HO87

@parkingwoes Do we have any indication, in terms of overall percentages, of the number of PCN's now being issued outside of the provisions of POFA? A wet finger in the air suggests that its an increasing number.

And it was just 7 years ago that certain hand-wringing apologists were arguing that the only answer to the woes of PPC's (that arose from motorists ignoring their demands for money) was keeper liability and out of that came POFA. Now it seems that having to abide by the relatively simple conditions the Act requires to enjoy its benefit are too expensive or is it simply beyond the wit of those self-same PPC's.

Instead of using statute law - which their then only representative body must have spent many thousands of hours developing and administering the snake oil for - PPC's would rather place their faith in a cynical misinterpretation of a single item of case law or rely on bottom-feeding service companies to barrel-scrape some crumbs.

Rather than there being any real movement for improvement in the scumdustry what we are actually witnessing is a regression to the bad old days of unadorned bluff and bluster. But then leopards never change their spots.

Like lipstick on a pig it matters not how many yachts, foreign villas, horses, flash cars, property portfolios and country estates they might have acquired - and of course in the case of one infamous PPC a dictionary, thesaurus and an ABC of Algorithms - once a KDEC always a KDEC*.

* Knuckle-dragging ex-clamper.

Mr_Wal

OK, I have received reply's, as you correctly stated they do not rely on POFA they say because the airport is covered by bylaws. They show signs which they say are clearly visible that say no stopping . They include the authority from birmingham airport letter and basically tell me to pay, but they do give me POPLA codes to appeal.

DO I go to the airport and try to take pictures of the signs to proved that they are difficult to read and that the drop off zone car park is ambiguous at best? plus what else normally works when you goto POPLA?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.