Two tickets!

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Lamilad wrote: »

But parking cases are highly contentious and usually boil to one word against another so the judge may rule on the 'balance of probabilities' who is most likely to be telling the truth.

Well in my case, the parking company will not be "telling lies" so to speak, but probably poisoning the well to convince the DJ that "frustration of contract" is as bad as "breach" of contract. I know that recovery agents are reliable but I am not sure about independent witnesses. For my case, there is an independent witness on whom I know I can rely.

nosferatu1001

If you can argue frustration, then no charge arising from contract can possibly arise. That is the entire point of that principle.

Marko_Hates_PPCs

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

If you can argue frustration, then no charge arising from contract can possibly arise. That is the entire point of that principle.

Makes perfect sense. So thanks.

Just a question to anyone who can help: I have now looked at scores of the examples to which I was directed on the opening three or four threads (POPLA successes, etc). Several times I have noticed appellants stating that the invoice arriving after 14 days violates the deadline. In my first post when I asked where this was stipulated, it turns out nowhere. What exactly am I confusing here? What is the relevance of "14 days". I only ask because the CP Plus first invoice did come bang on 17 days after the alleged incident.

Coupon-mad

It is stated in the POFA Schedule 4 for keeper liability, but what I was trying to tell you was, PPCs don't have to abide by the POFA.

However, if they post the NTK too late for it to have possibly reached the recipient by day 14 (where day 1 is the day after the event), then the keeper can't be held liable.

invoice did come bang on 17 days after the alleged incident.

But you can't prove that. But you can look at the date on the NTK to see if it was posted too late.

Either way, none of this matters - just send the usual appeal from the NEWBIES thread, no need to overthink this until POPLA; CP Plus often just cancel anyway when they see a person is on here/using our template!

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Thanks CM ...

So let me summarise.

1) Keeper liability is contingent on POFA.
2) PPCs may decide to pursue outside of POFA's provisions, but if so are not protected by its benefits to them (notably the right to exact their demand from the keeper)
3) Schedule 4 specifies the 14-day limit

As I said in an earlier post, CP Plus (who exceeded 14 days) impeached themselves anyhow when they held out for a higher fee that the NtK. The invoice is issued 17 days after the alleged incident therefore cannot have truly been sent before this date, and it arrived 22 days after the alleged incident.

I'm in two minds here. Either I copy one of the templates, or I chance it with my own hitherto untested representation but with which I am happy. I agree with the poster who advised not to edit/embellish the templates if using it for myself other than adjusting the specifics. I feel very temped though to add my own analysis.

I'll give this one some thought.

If I could ask one more question, what is the best way (and at which stage) to challenge the operator to prove he has landowner permission to manage the car park? First appeal?

...Also, given they may have the permission and proof, are we just asking them this to make additional work for them for when they send a copy of the contract? Or is it simply that they usually ignore this which gives the appellant a stronger chance with POPLA?

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

The invoice is issued 17 days after the alleged incident therefore cannot have truly been sent before this date, and it arrived 22 days after the alleged incident.

Now you are talking! And you say it includes the words that it is 'issued under the POFA':

Looking at the three CP Plus letters right now as I speak, they do specify POFA 2012 in no newer than two places.

So, as well as appealing as registered keeper, who can't be held liable, you can complain to the BPA and DVLA about that serious matter. Show them on an email, the letters and highlight/circle in close up in a scan, where CP Plus talk about the POFA and keeper liability, because that's NOT ALLOWED:

aos@britishparking.co.uk

and

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Don't be fobbed off by the BPA and even if the PCN is cancelled, ask the BPA what sanctions will be applied for misleading a keeper about liability for a non-POFA PCN.

And of course you can use your own version of first appeal (the template is merely there for unsure posters, or illiterate/clueless posters who can't string a sentence together without saying who parked the car...).

If I could ask one more question, what is the best way (and at which stage) to challenge the operator to prove he has landowner permission to manage the car park? First appeal?

I'd leave that till POPLA stage because they don't have to tell you anything about landowner authority at this appeal stage.

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Marvelous! That is all my questions answered!

Decision made then. Original appeal it will be and a report will be on its way to the DVLA and the BPA. I guess now that their "tertiary" demand figure of 140.00 £ is irrelevant since they are not "honestly" operating on a POFA basis.

With regards Horizon, my scenario here is similar to the other big thread "Fluttering ticket". That is a minor worry given the poster there is going to court and another user having stated that there was one DJ who ruled in favour of the parking company. NonethelessI will hold out that the Beavis finding would not apply since Iceland is a P&D rather than a free car park, and the driver couldn't have paid for more since the driver did not need more time (on the Prankster's website, there is access to the 2014 hearing where this was stated and all whilst the Beavis case was live and known to the public). But as I said, it isn't reassuring when some demented judge dismisses this appeal.

Marko_Hates_PPCs

PS. Two types of DJ (not radio presenters).

1. District Judge - who plays with a full deck and does his job.
2. Demented Judge - who favours a parking company. The name Marko Hates PPCs was chosen for a good reason!