PCN for incorrectly placed ticket

daffodil11

Oh right, I just assumed, obviously wrongly, that it would be where the incident happened. That’s a little bit easier then but still very apprehensive about it all. I’m going to do some more reading and lots of good advice on here so hopefully we’ll get through it!

daffodil11

Oh another good idea. Actually you could just use the tax disc holder if car still has it I guess? Tickets are generally quite small so should fit in?

KeithP

Relieve some of the apprehension by watching this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

claxtome

Did your case go to court? It was in Cornwall you see in holiday so if it gets to court then it’s actually going to be cheaper to pay the fine than travel and accommodation costs! I presume can claim back actual court costs if I win but not sure about travel/accommodation and time off work etc?!

It didn't get to court.
The parking firm decided to discontinue.
If you win at court you can claim the costs for the day including travel to/from court, loss of earnings and if you travel by car your parking costs
Do you really want to pay for what is a scam?

daffodil11

Hi all
So, after getting past the 56 day mark I naively thought I may not hear- only to receive NTK on day 86!! I have tried to research a bit and think that as it’s after the 56 days then there’s no longer keeper liability so as long as driver not named then basically it keeps going round in circles? I have honestly tried to research but so many different scenario cases that it’s hard to know what applies to me so I would be so grateful if someone could explain what my next steps are please?

Many, many thanks
D

nosferatu1001

Absolutely no different scenarios

To get keeper liabilty ONE of the elements is that, when a NtD is issued, a NtK must be served between day 29 and 56
If they fail to do so, there is no keeper liabilty

So, check your NTK - does it even say the keeper is liable? if it does, you have an obvious complaint to their body,a sthere CANNOT be keeper liability now.

daffodil11

Sorry I just meant it’s confusing as a lot of cases/templates etc are to do with the signage but mine isn’t about that. Mine is a ‘fluttering ticket’ case.

Erm, it doesn’t specifically say the keeper is liable but that the keeper is invited to either pay the charge or provide driver details. It states that if neither is done in 28 days then ‘we may pursue you for so much that the charge remains unpaid, based on the fact that on balance of probabilities the keeper was indeed the driver’ . Is this what you mean?

Thanks

nosferatu1001

Yes

However, notice how they are NOT using POFA? Theyre just using an asusmption. A complete !!!!!!!! one as well, as they well know

Coupon-mad

‘we may pursue you for so much that the charge remains unpaid, based on the fact that on balance of probabilities the keeper was indeed the driver’ .

LOL, they may NOT!!

Fruitcake

Signage is involved as it the basis on which a contract is formed between the motorist and the PPC, so it is relevant.
So is a fluttering ticket.
So is no keeper liability.

PPCs lie. Assuming the keeper is the driver has been rubbished every time this is tried by a scammer in court. It gets thrown out every time but the scammers keep putting it in their threatogrammes because they are bullies, liars, and cheats. Some people believe the rubbish and pay up. That's exactly what they want.

Read here what one judge said about this.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html

You appeal the NTK using the template from the NEWBIES. You can add that the keeper isn't liable as they very well know if you wish, telling them their assumption that the keeper was the driver will be rubbished in court, but don't hold your breath.
The likelihood is that they will ignore anything you put in your initial appeal, so it's probably not worth the effort of amending it.
You also run the chance of giving away the driver's identity if you go off script.