parking charge notice from park watch

Fruitcake

takman wrote: »

Nowhere in this thread did I suggest the drivers identify is irrelevant and as I have said many times there is no way anyone can be sure who the OP is. Even if the OP admitted they were driving on here (Which they havn't) then the fact that "kevi26" from the MSE forum isn't going to help any parking company win an appeal.

If you can't show evidence that parking companies can use the OP's post against them then telling them that they will is uncessary scaremongering and paranoia.

If everyone who posts on the parking forum provides advice without any evidence that it will be sucesful or correct then I can't imagine it to be very useful at all.

Lamilad had his posts on pepipoo quoted by the PPC in court.

I have had a PM from a NEWBIE who told me the PPC quoted his posts on MSE when he appealed, even though he never used his real name on here.

The regulars here have been told several times by MSE Towers that complaints have been made about posts on MSE by PPCs.

We know therefore that PPCs monitor these fora. The only reason for that is for the PPC to try and gain an advantage in an appeal; the biggest advantage being an admission of who was driving.

Often NEWBIES post enough information on here for them to be identified as the vehicle keeper by PPCs.

Posters sometimes use their real names, sometimes they post their vehicle VRN, sometimes they quote the PCN number. All of this information is unique to a particular PCN and identifies a poster as the keeper.

Sometimes an exact time and date, or a location and date, or period of alleged parking and date, or combinations of the above from a NTD/NTK is enough for PPC to identify a specific PCN which when appealed reveals the identity of the keeper on here. This is how the NEWBIE who contacted me was identified by the PPC as the vehicle keeper.
Fortunately they had not admitted anywhere that they were the driver.

A single comment then that "I parked ..." will be enough for the PPCs to take a screen grab and prove the keeper was the driver.

This is why in most cases we advise posters not to reveal the driver's identity.
Sometimes it is to the poster's advantage to admit being the driver; residential parking cases being one example.

Since a driver does not have the same protection offered by the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 as a vehicle keeper, the default starting point should always be, Don't Tell Him Pike, not even on here, and then decide later if this should be changed.

One of the reasons for telling posters not to give away the driver's identity is to get them into the habit of not giving the game away at a later stage.
There is at least one case in the last few months where a PoPLA assessor picked up on a keeper appeal the fact that the appellant had said the dreaded words I parked (or something similar) in their appeal, and therefore said, I am satisfied the appellant was the driver.
Bang. Strong appeal points straight out the window.

Umkomaas

The other point, if a keeper is appealing (or even defending) and another random thread under pseudonym but with enough similarities (same PPC, same parking location) states ‘I was the driver’, a PPC might put 2 + 2 together and come up with a totally wrong answer, but nonetheless copies the ‘admission’ and includes that in its evidence.

If you’re that keeper, now prove in the very short time available that the particular thread is not yours.

nosferatu1001

Takman - this isn’t the place for your inaccurate theories. Take them elsewhere.

Johno100

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Takman - this isn’t the place for your inaccurate theories. Take them elsewhere.

To be fair, this thread did start on the Motoring Board.

Coupon-mad

kevi26 wrote: »

I have received a parking charge notice from park watch for parking on Broughton shopping park, i was parked in an area with no double yellows and nothing to indicate I couldn't park there, l wasn't parked in a bay though but there was no spaces nearby , i went back today and on further inspection realised there were some really small signs which were difficult to read.
should I bother appealing this or just pay it? i do have photos but can't work out how to upload them

Kevi 26 please just read the NEWBIES thread and appeal as described/written there.

takman

Fruitcake wrote: »

Lamilad had his posts on pepipoo quoted by the PPC in court.

I have had a PM from a NEWBIE who told me the PPC quoted his posts on MSE when he appealed, even though he never used his real name on here.

The regulars here have been told several times by MSE Towers that complaints have been made about posts on MSE by PPCs.

I hope no posts have been removed due to their complaints because i know the moderators on this forum are very quick to remove posts if there is any hint of it causing them trouble.

Fruitcake wrote: »

We know therefore that PPCs monitor these fora. The only reason for that is for the PPC to try and gain an advantage in an appeal; the biggest advantage being an admission of who was driving.

Often NEWBIES post enough information on here for them to be identified as the vehicle keeper by PPCs.

Posters sometimes use their real names, sometimes they post their vehicle VRN, sometimes they quote the PCN number. All of this information is unique to a particular PCN and identifies a poster as the keeper.

Sometimes an exact time and date, or a location and date, or period of alleged parking and date, or combinations of the above from a NTD/NTK is enough for PPC to identify a specific PCN which when appealed reveals the identity of the keeper on here. This is how the NEWBIE who contacted me was identified by the PPC as the vehicle keeper.
Fortunately they had not admitted anywhere that they were the driver.

Yes i agree that it is foolish to post so much information.

Fruitcake wrote: »

A single comment then that "I parked ..." will be enough for the PPCs to take a screen grab and prove the keeper was the driver.

This is why in most cases we advise posters not to reveal the driver's identity.
Sometimes it is to the poster's advantage to admit being the driver; residential parking cases being one example.

Since a driver does not have the same protection offered by the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 as a vehicle keeper, the default starting point should always be, Don't Tell Him Pike, not even on here, and then decide later if this should be changed.

One of the reasons for telling posters not to give away the driver's identity is to get them into the habit of not giving the game away at a later stage.
There is at least one case in the last few months where a PoPLA assessor picked up on a keeper appeal the fact that the appellant had said the dreaded words I parked (or something similar) in their appeal, and therefore said, I am satisfied the appellant was the driver.
Bang. Strong appeal points straight out the window.

So do you think the information in the OP's post would be enough to be used by the PPC's at any stage of the process successfully?. If they attempt to use such vague information then they must make mistakes in matching up the forum posts to the people.

Do the POPLA assessors really just take the posts at face value even if the are very vague and could not even be the correct person?. It's starting to sound like POPLA are very biased if this is the case.

takman

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Takman - this isn’t the place for your inaccurate theories. Take them elsewhere.

I didn't even know the thread had been moved until reading your post.!. I wouldn't have had this kind of discussion on the parking forum.

But i don't see a problem with discussing the reasons behind the "advice" given because i'm sure other people will find it interesting.

Fruitcake

takman wrote: »

I hope no posts have been removed due to their complaints because i know the moderators on this forum are very quick to remove posts if there is any hint of it causing them trouble.



Yes i agree that it is foolish to post so much information.



So do you think the information in the OP's post would be enough to be used by the PPC's at any stage of the process successfully?. If they attempt to use such vague information then they must make mistakes in matching up the forum posts to the people.

Not yet, but as I already explained, a single comment such as "I parked ..." followed later by posts where the other information I mentioned can be fatal to a successful appeal.
That's why it's in the NEWBIES.
That's why we tell a NEWBIE poster at the earliest opportunity not to reveal the driver's identity, even if they haven't already done so.

Do the POPLA assessors really just take the posts at face value even if the are very vague and could not even be the correct person?. It's starting to sound like POPLA are very biased if this is the case.

takman wrote: »

I didn't even know the thread had been moved until reading your post.!. I wouldn't have had this kind of discussion on the parking forum.

But i don't see a problem with discussing the reasons behind the "advice" given because i'm sure other people will find it interesting.

If you want to discuss the reasons behind the advice, you should start your own thread on the subject.

Hopefully now you understand why it is important not to give away any information about the driver's identity and why the regulars here tell people not to shoot themselves in the foot.