Unfair PCN in Eastleigh - HELP

Quentin

Rachpw wrote: »

I have edited my original post.

You now need to pm the poster who quoted your original post and ask that the old quote be deleted (otherwise you have wasted your time!)

Rachpw

IT was an ANPR through the post method. Incident date was 20th January and letter dated 25th Jan.

Rachpw

This is my proposed Popla Appeal, can anyone advise or improve on the content:

I was issued with a parking ticket on 25th January 2017 but I believe it was unfairly and over zealously issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following reasons:

• There was insufficient signage
The car park in question is hardly a car park, it is at the rear of a shop and is a few marked out bays and has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are or where they exactly apply. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached photograph that shows that the space where the car is parked appears to be outside of the supposed restricted area or signage. I took this photograph 2 weeks after we received our ticket for parking in the same spot. Further, the writing on the sign, which is on the fence in front of the parked car is so tiny that without very close inspection it is not possible to read and certainly not from the drivers side of the vehicle.


• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.

In my case, the £100 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of which there in none because this is a none charging car park for customers visiting the store Pampurred Pets. This store closes at 5.30pm therefore no potential customers would be affected by the spaces being used outside of their opening times. This is clearly a case where Pampurred Pets have been approached by Premier Park to manage these spaces as a money making scheme and when I tried to raise this with the store in question they list no telephone number on their website for Head Office and when I spoke with the branch even they said they only communicated with Head Office via email – which in itself strikes me as odd. I propose that Premier Park over zealously police this site and threaten and bombard and mislead poor motorists who have done nothing wrong.

• Having gone back and viewed the signage on the site I also note that the land clearly belongs to the store holder and to that end they are surely the only body able to threaten me with a court action. Nowhere on the signage does it list Premier Park’s contract with Pampurred pets to prosecute on their behalf and I understood this to be wrong. What it does state is not clear as it reads:

o PampurredPets customer/registered staff parking only. (I am a Pampurred Pets customer but on this occasion the store was closed.)
o 30 minutes maximum stay for customers whilst they remain in store and register at the till on arrival. (The vehicle was parked for 30 minutes and in fact the driver did not leave the vehicle, we went to Macdonalds and ate in the car. I believe that if someone remains in the vehicle that does not constitute parking)
o Do not park & go elsewhere. Park within a marked bay, do not park on hatched areas. No Exceptions. (I would argue that the bay the car was parked in was outside of the supposed ‘Private Land’.)

Coupon-mad

Already advised you somewhere (pepipoo?).

You can't use ''no loss''.

Use the templates in the NEWBIES thread post #3 instead, that is far too short!