Wing ticket advice

KeithP

Perhaps you can PM Roosterrs.

He submitted a PoPLA appeal over the weekend and won it earlier today.

Get first hand experience from him.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5888750/highview

Coupon-mad

DisneyB wrote: »

this is what I see (i'm probably completely missing it)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/utdfdu7nl9oj9tf/Screen%20Shot%202018-09-17%20at%2021.53.47.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0abrd2b46bus81w/Screen%20Shot%202018-09-17%20at%2021.53.59.png?dl=0

Then log out and start again and click OTHER (down the bottom) only. You have clicked on the choices like 'the vehicle was not improperly parked' and we don't use those.

We just hit 'OTHER' (the last option) then upload the PDF appeal.

DisneyB

As expected from reading the forum, Wing have now replied to my Popla appeal with a long document stating
- I'm a resident and as it's an area I use regularly and have a permit for then I cannot fail to be aware of the terms and the need for a valid estate permit be displayed at all times.
- That it's not necessary for the sign to be instantly and fully readable from drivers view.
- That my permit expired a month before the PCN was issued so I had a month to replace it and it wasn't a slight oversight and I had plenty of time to arrange a replacement (I sent them a photo of the replacement permit which started a day after my previous one expired but because it stated visitor rather than my number plate which is normal if you don't take insurance letter to the council when getting them which I hadn't done due to not being able to find them at the time)

And with images from my previous appeals, the ticket, my car parked and the contract with the local council they are working for

Now I guess I reply to this, although I struggling to see where to go next with the argument as they basically seem to have an answer for everything, it's so disgusting these companies can try and get £100 out of you for parking on your own estate which it doesn't even cost to park on in the first place (permits are free) and all because the expired permit was on show rather than the valid one

nosferatu1001

They have AN answer. Of course they do. Doubt its a good one however!

Go through every point of your appeal. If theyve missed ANYTHING, then you state the operatror has failed to rebut your appeal point ... therefore they have accepted it and the appeal must succeed.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

waamo

Let me get this right. They are admitting the signs aren't immediately readable? They then say they don't need to be?

Unbelievable Jeff.

I'm slightly concerned you seem to think that's "an answer for everything" as it flies in the face of accepted practice.

DisneyB

waamo wrote: »

Let me get this right. They are admitting the signs aren't immediately readable? They then say they don't need to be?

Unbelievable Jeff.

I'm slightly concerned you seem to think that's "an answer for everything" as it flies in the face of accepted practice.

In their words -

It is not necessary for the sign to be instantly and full readable from the driver’s position as the appellant repeatedly states. She seems to be under the misapprehension that the sign “must be read before parking and leaving a car” when in fact the complete opposite is true. It is only necessary that the sign be readily recognisable as a parking related sign and if need be, the driver must park, then go read the sign, then make their decision whether to park or to stay. The large “P” logo clearly confirms the sign is clearly recognisable as a parking related sign and there are several signs, not just one, and these are at the entrance. Even if one sign might be in poor condition or located poorly from one point of view, there are several others in
the location.

- worst thing about that is, if you're parking at night you wouldn't be able to get go read the sign and decide because they're high on on poles that don't have lights on them

DisneyB

I know I shot myself in the foot big time admitting I was the drive run the first place but I honestly thought being honest, explaining due to health reasons/my disability was the reason for forgetting to display my valid permit for an estate I live on that they or at least the council would have the sense and decency to cancel the charge, scumbags!

DisneyB

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

They have AN answer. Of course they do. Doubt its a good one however!

Go through every point of your appeal. If theyve missed ANYTHING, then you state the operatror has failed to rebut your appeal point ... therefore they have accepted it and the appeal must succeed.

They've replied to every part I've questioned them, even babbling some crap about me saying the PCN was issued immediately after my previous permit expired and this isn't the truth and for that must cast doubt upon the remainder of the appellant’s claims - when in fact I told them and showed them a photo of my new and valid permit that was issued the day my previous one was expired and was valid on the date the PCN was issued, annoyingly it just wasn't sitting in the window screen

waamo

DisneyB wrote: »

In their words -

It is not necessary for the sign to be instantly and full readable from the driver’s position as the appellant repeatedly states. She seems to be under the misapprehension that the sign “must be read before parking and leaving a car” when in fact the complete opposite is true. It is only necessary that the sign be readily recognisable as a parking related sign and if need be, the driver must park, then go read the sign, then make their decision whether to park or to stay. The large “P” logo clearly confirms the sign is clearly recognisable as a parking related sign and there are several signs, not just one, and these are at the entrance. Even if one sign might be in poor condition or located poorly from one point of view, there are several others in
the location.

- worst thing about that is, if you're parking at night you wouldn't be able to get go read the sign and decide because they're high on on poles that don't have lights on them

That is a pack of untrue statements. No wonder they have an answer if it's huge porkies.

Have a read of the BPA code of practice. It states signs must be clearly visible.

Take a good read of section 18.2 of the practice