Incorrect signage?

scamdodger

I have just, as the vehicle RK, received a PCN which was due to a parking incident by a family member. Its early days yet, but I have noticed that both the PCN and the signage refer to the site by a slightly different title (by the omission of one letter) to what it actually is. Assuming that the signage is attempting to form a contract with the driver, doesn't it have to be 100% accurate and is this a way in which I can challenge the PPC and/or at POPLA, if it gets that far?

Coupon-mad

Nope, think again!

Tell us which PPC?

scamdodger

ParkingEye

Fruitcake

Start by sending the blue BPA template from the NEWBIES thread, then begin reading up on PoPLA appeals when they reject it.

Get photos of signs at the entrance and around the car park.
Complain to the landowner if that's an option.

Coupon-mad

scamdodger wrote: »

ParkingEye

How did your family manage to get caught by them again? Thought you'd avoid their car parks like the plague after your run-in during the Wright Hassall 'posing as POPLA/free the 4000' debacle. Which we assume you lost, thanks to WH?

scamdodger

Methinks your research is flawed. No one in my family has been caught by ParkingEye and I have never posted to that effect. Nor have I ever lost, as you assume. But I'm always open to constructive comments and guidance.

bergkamp

scamdodger wrote: »

Methinks your research is flawed. No one in my family has been caught by ParkingEye and I have never posted to that effect. Nor have I ever lost, as you assume. But I'm always open to constructive comments and guidance.

What was the outcome here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5426538

You posted on someone else's thread and....

scamdodger

....and nothing happened, so let's let sleeping dogs lie. I was also told to start a new thread if I needed further help, which I didn't, as to date I have not been pursued. Raking up old posts of over a year and a half ago isn't really relevant to my current question.

scamdodger

The actual site is a social club car park which has very recently got PE to put in place an ANPR camera system and signs. There is no charge for parking, provided members & guests enter their registration number at a terminal inside the club. The driver (not me) did not spot the new signs and had parked initially due to a vehicle emergency. The car was parked for 1 hour, starting at a time about half an hour before the club opened.
I have done as advised in post #4, first appealing to the club committee (and who have the power to cancel the charge with PE) but they have declined to waive it. I have taken photos of the car park and got quite excited when I saw that the name of the premises was slightly wrong on the signs, but I'm told this is not relevant.
My next move is to send the letter using the template in post #3 in the Newbies thread. Is there any mileage in adding to the first paragraph something to the effect?
… I also believe, having visited the site, that your signs contain errors and cannot form the contract that you are attempting to enforce.
Or should I stick with the standard defence for the moment?
It may be worth challenging landowner consent etc, at POPLA when it happens, but as this is a new installation, it may be that PE have made sure all the loopholes are closed off.

Coupon-mad

Thing is, with new signs they are meant to put up extra ones, so people familiar with the car park notice them. I think it's in the BPA CoP and is a good point for POPLA.

I wouldn't add anything to the template; the misspelt sign argument has no legs at POPLA or court.

scamdodger

If my appeal to PE is rejected and subsequently I get a POPLA decision against me, will I then be liable for the £60 discounted charge, or the full £100, because I haven't paid within 28 days?
Probably an obvious question, but haven't spotted the answer in the Newbies thread.