Wish I had checked here first, I appealed stating I was the 'driver'. UKCPS, am I screwed.

fisherjim

The only place it says to ignore on here is NI or Scotland!

mrteabag59

Thanks again, I'll await the update and let you guys know.


But it appears to not have made too big a difference by acknowledging I was the 'driver' rather than the keeper.

waamo

It only matters if your defence is their none compliance with POFA. At an IPC adjudication they will assume you are the driver no matter what.

It does make defending it in court a little trickier as it removes a potential line of defence. In saying that your defence wouldn't be reliant on failure to identify the driver. Yours would be based around you having permission to park there.

Redx

as above , all it means is that POFA2012 cannot be used and is one less hurdle for UKCPS, plus if they complied with POFA2012 then it doesnt matter anyway

Sometimes a driver appeal and a driver defending themselves in court is better because they can tell the judge the facts of the case and a judge may strike the claim out if they genuinely thought that the driver had done everything they could do in the circumstances, but that lease or tenancy agreement is crucial if this went to court


ie:- what would you say if the judge asked you if you were the driver ? think about it , because perjury carries a harsher sentence


as mentioned above, it is not a "fine" , you used that F word as slang and it has no bearing in law , because its actually an INVOICE, as the MP,s stated in parliament only last friday

and any advice to IGNORE ON THIS FORUM has only been given to people in Scotland & Northern Ireland, because different laws can and do apply in those devolved "countries"

IGNORE has not been advised on here since March 2013 due to POFA2012 occurring in October 2012

and the time that these parking charges were a "summons2 passed over a decade ago in almost all areas of the country (last week the MP,s said there were 6 smalll areas left in the UK)

mrteabag59

Thanks Redx brilliant informative response.

Yeah I just used ‘fine’ as slang.
Glad I appealed and gave honest rationale for why I had no other choice when travelling somewhere with a friend who was running late so couldn’t get a visitor pass before I had to leave.

I suppose I didn’t follow their rules (which I hadn’t as it was night and under a time pressure, if I had have seen them I wouldn’t have risked all this ‘aggro’.

Suppose I will await their next letter and see that happens.

The_Deep

The identity of the driver is of little consequence in residential parking disputes.

What is important is the wording of the lease/AST. If this gives the resident an absolute right to park, the PPC is just an annoying scammer, and can GFT, read this.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

So, what is the exact wording of the lease WRT parking permt

If the lease/AST gives the leaseholder an unfettered right to park, they will win the claim because they have primacy of contract, and they can ask a judge to ot award them costs because of the PPCs unreasonable behaviour, or, as Mr Davey, (a barrister) did, go after them for trespass. He could have also claimed for invasion of privacy under DPA and harassment.


Read what MPs think of this scam.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.