Wing ticket advice

DisneyB

waamo wrote: »

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

Thank you, will do.
Read through their reply again, I noticed they state how they are aware I'm a resident, I park here regularly and do HAVE a permit for, so they give me a PCN for not having a valid permit but happily admit they know I have a permit and then they go on later like they have no clue I had a valid permit at the time, when I sent them evidence of this in both previous appeals.

Is there anything I should avoid adding in my comments/admitting to which would mean shooting myself in the foot even more than I've already done

DisneyB

Thank you for encouragement to read the BPA waamo because I just found this interesting point in section 18.10 - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

As a disabled person I can very much confirm none of the signs are readable without leaving the car, they're not even readable from a wheelchair when not in the car

waamo

DisneyB wrote: »

Thank you for encouragement to read the BPA waamo because I just found this interesting point in section 18.10 - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

As a disabled person I can very much confirm none of the signs are readable without leaving the car, they're not even readable from a wheelchair when not in the car

Bingo. Point out to POPLA the part of the relevant code of practice. POPLA are dumb and will need it made so a 5 year old can understand but failure to follow the CoP means the ticket should be cancelled.

Also if they know you are a resident why are they issuing a ticket? You should be on a whitelist as the whole idea of enforcement is for the benefit of residents.

DisneyB

deleted comments

waamo

Too wordy. You have an extremely small amount of characters to use 2000 in all. Cut out everything that is unnecessary such as repeating what they say.

Fruitcake

This is an extract form the DVLA KADOE contract requirements. (My bold)

CONTRACT
Between
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport (the “DVLA”)
and
[XXXXXXXXXX CUSTOMER NAME

A6. Membership of an Accredited Trade Association
A6.1. The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.
A6

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

The salient words are, "Contract", and "shall at all times". Consequently in your case, the scammers have failed to comply not only with the BPA CoP concerning signage, they have failed to comply with the DVLA contract.

Reword this and quote the relevant part of the DVLA contract, the BPA CoP concerning signage, and the web link.

The fact that the scammers know you are a regular user is irrelevant. They are trying to form a contract with you by using a sign that itself breaches their contract with the DVLA.

Please also put some paragraphs and line spacing in, but do watch out for the 2000 character limit.

nosferatu1001

How does Wing breaching the KADOE contract prevent the PCN from being correctly issued, which is the laughably stupid measure POPLA uses?

DisneyB

Now reworded it to cut out their quotes and ensure it's within the 2000 character limit

Section 10- They clearly state and accept they know I am a resident of the estate and admit that I do in fact hold a permit for the location they issued me with a PCN for allegedly parking without a permit

Section 11- Terms & condition signs are not readable in the dark as all signs are located high up, with at least half the wording in small print & no lighting, even in conditions with good day light, most of the sign is unreadable for the same reasons. More importantly their statement in this section alone has them admitting to breaking The BPA code of practise twice in this circumstance, as section 18.2 states - The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park - which would mean reading the sign from the driver’s position and Wing are stating this isn’t necessary, also as a disabled person I would like to more importantly point out section 18.10 which states - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists. There are no signs at all on the estate/land with any terms or conditions for parking that are readable from driver's perspective, all signs would need you to leave the car, standing up & be tall to read, as mentioned depending on lighting would also need a torch, by Wing Parking stating the signs don’t need to be readable from the driver’s position is in fact untrue by the BPA code of practise, therefor they have admitted to breaking these rules, therefor the appeal must succeed.

section 18- I have shown Wing Parking via photo evidence in my appeals that I did have a valid permit for the date the PCN was issued and therefor their claims here are misleading to this appeal & untrue as they admit earlier in their response that they are aware I do have a permit