Appeal on a technicality?

justlaugh2

Thank you for your reply

Redx

post #1 needs more editing, still too much info


the DRIVER may often stop there , the DRIVER was caught on camera etc


no "MY , ME , MYSELF & I" , capiche ?

justlaugh2

Ok so through the sarcasm I’ve garnered that I just edit the template and appeal. Il have another look and find out which one to send as it depends on which body they are registered and also on which day to do it as that also makes a difference!
Thanks for all your help everyone!

Redx

you dont edit the template, you edit your first post and remove any hint of who was driving (shame I had to spell it out for you , thats all)

blabbing costs money

and there is only ONE template in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, written in blue text so nobody can mistake it for anything else

that same template applies for ANY private parking appeal, from any registered company with the BPA or the IPC

no other templates exist (apart from the ones for hire/lease/company vehicles), and you do not alter it at all , it is written to stop people saying I PARKED ON A PRIVATE CAR PARK & I DIDNT READ THE SIGNS etc

if the PCN was a postal NTK then there is no reason to wait before appealing (that only applies to windscreen tickets)

the "sarcasm" is there to make you wake up and smell the coffee , so at the moment you get a 2 from me so try and get a ten from Len before this is over

good luck

Coupon-mad

I’ve garnered that I just edit the template and appeal.

No, it tells everyone not to edit it (unless you want to remove the bit about a wrong VRN, to make it less wordy).

Il have another look and find out which one to send as it depends on which body they are registered

No, apart from the hire/company car version lower down, there is only one appeal.

Redx

post #1 seems ok now


so as for this 5 minutes, read clause #13 of the BPA CoP january 2018 edition and see what it says about "Grace Periods" , ask yourself is 5 minutes less than the 10 minutes grace allowed ? and that will be one of the popla appeal "technicalities" that will hold up better than any incorrect names

justlaugh2

Thank you both, didnt see the wood for the trees, too busy searching for specific terms and company names, great advice from you both and I shall get on it tomorrow.
Thanks again ������

The_Deep

£241 is tantamount to fraud imo, a lot more than the law allows. The solicitors know this but hope to sucker you into paying.

Even if they won their claim in court, which is unlikely, the most a judge is likely to award would be £175 - £200, the rest is think of a number money.

I suggest that you complain to the regulatory body, the SRA about this demand for unlawful costs.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Also, complain to your MP

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

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

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

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business in the not too distant future.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

£241 is tantamount to fraud imo, a lot more than the law allows. The solicitors know this but hope to sucker you into paying.

Even if they won their claim in court, which is unlikely, the most a judge is likely to award would be £175 - £200, the rest is think of a number money.

@TD - where has '£241' or 'their claim in court' come from? This is at initial appeal stage.

You're copying and pasting the wrong template soldier!