Reasonably unfair?

Nicksy1

Hi Everyone

Received an NTK (a colleague got 2) so it's appeal time - can we continue to post here or do we need to start a new thread with questions whilst drafting the appeal? e.g. the big one is:

Do we just use the blanket appeal template, or can we include the NHS parking guide (which the Trust was in breach of) and the Trust's parking guide (left no alternatives) as a defence?

We think the sign doesn't pass the easy-to-read test, it's bottom edge is about 7 foot above the ground with much smaller writing than the sign in the Beavis Vs Parking Eye case. What is much clearer are the hand-written signs that say nursery staff only. Should we post pictures?

Also can any of the below new events be used as a defence?

Thanks for help in advance

Also the landowner very quickly blocked these nursery spaces with cones and tape to prevent anyone parking there and to prevent claims/ticketing of staff, more fences have gone missing, so definitely no one looking after those premises. The drop-off area with the VERY prominently positioned eye-level signs (still small writing) has not been blocked off and still has cars occasionally parking however we haven't seen any new tickets on these cars.

Our trust are going to pave and demarcate a gravel car park with a large area of grass, so we are getting 40 more spaces, but they will be putting up the permit fees

The driver's line manager will allow for expense claims if anyone is forced to park in a pay-as-you go car park.

However our trust will not help as the other trust 'can do whatever they want with their land' and the other trust will not get involved with any parking tickets, they just advise to appeal.

It kind of sounds like the landowner wanted to set an example and instil fear into repeat offenders but didn't think about the consequences and possibly now feel a little guilty, but not helpful when facing a £70 fine and appeal process.

Redx

use this thread and draft and post your draft appeal for critique

there are no popla templates, each one is bespoke so use post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and add the appeal points separately, use recent popla appeals that were approved as templates to construct your own

Nasqueron

Nicksy

Your original post edit still identifies the driver, you put a note in for the edit as below (cut short)

Last edited by Nicksy1; Today at 6:33 PM. Reason: Could be used as evidence by parking company - altered to say the driver

You should edit the note as well to make it just say "edited"

Coupon-mad

Sign, about 7 foot above ground says: Hospital Trust Name,
NURSERY PARKING ONLY,
PRIVATE PROPERTY in huge letters

Sign sounds like it creates no contract to pay money for parking being allowed?

What date was on the NTK?

And presumably you've compared the words on the NTK about keeper liability and 28 days, etc. (carefully, pedantically) to para 8 of the POFA, not asking us.

An easy 'spot the difference' game for any newbie.

Nicksy1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sign sounds like it creates no contract to pay money for parking being allowed?

What date was on the NTK?

6th March - gives me till Easter Monday!

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And presumably you've compared the words on the NTK about keeper liability and 28 days, etc. (carefully, pedantically) to para 8 of the POFA, not asking us.

An easy 'spot the difference' game for any newbie.

Haven't compared wording yet, that was going to be my next task, thanks for pointing me to the correct text to look at. Compared to a scary Parking Eye letter I received due to incorrect number plate and ANPR car park last year this one looks all above board - they've even added a bit about if you believe data has been misused notify us (TPS), the ICO and DVLA immediately! Wish Parking Eye said that last year cos felt like they had fraudulently obtained my data from DVLA!

Nicksy1

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number:

I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this alleged 'parking charge' for being “Parked in a permit holders only parking area”. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable.

Other reasons for why this PCN is not valid + evidence

Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.They have provided several but cannot make out the text on these signs.
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle. Think may have received all these.

I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner.

If you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code.

Yours faithfully,

The Keeper

THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER GOES HERE.

Coupon-mad

There is no legitimate demand in the car park where the !!!8216;alleged Parking Event!!!8217; occurred therefore how can a charge be applied to staff who are displaying permits for which they pay, but cannot obtain !!!8216;legitimate parking!!!8217;, and who are not parked dangerously, inconsiderately or in contravention of the highway code.

Errm, isn't that saying who the driver was?

Nicksy1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Errm, isn't that saying who the driver was?

I don't know ... thought it was identifying driver as having legitimate business ... differentiating staff from patient/visitor who was trying to avoid paying for parking ... 1 out of several thousand employees?

This is their version of the sign they sent me: unreadable

Now I've written that big long letter I'm actually considering sending it to the 2 CEOs anyway, even though they say they won't get involved.

Coupon-mad

I agree about the unreadable sign.

I don't think a keeper should be identifying the driver as a staff member.

nigelbb

This is TPS who don't do court http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Total_Parking_Solutions.html

TPS are also spectacularly incompetent so the usual ploy is to appeal as keeper on Day 25 as they then fail to send a NTK.