One solution parking CCTV fine

mrmannn38

Hi All,

Looking for some advice if possible!

Someone who isn’t me received a parking ticket via CCTV from one parking solution. Said person was working with a colleague at the time and was parked in a pay and display bay with no ticket. Said person assumed that if they stay sat in the van, they wouldn’t get a ticket (assumed there was no cameras and that it would be a warden who turned up).

Given that it is a private firm, what’s the chances of getting out of this one?! I have read the newbies thread but struggled to align it up to my circumstances. I also read MSE thread and appealed it initially on the fact that they only offered me 14days to pay at the reduced rate. The article I read states that CCTV fines are allowed 21days.

Additionally, no names have been mentioned so far.

Any help you be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks.

Fruitcake

If the PPC don't know the name of the driver then you should edit your post to remove information about who did what. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.
The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not.

Do this before you do anything else.

It is not a fine.

The vehicle was parked, irrespective of whether there was anyone in it or not.

What did you actually put in your appeal?
What was their response? Did they supply a PoPLA code?
What are the relevant dates? (Date of alleged event, date the NTK arrived?)

I don't know what article you read but any of the "official" MSE stuff is dangerously inaccurate rubbish. Mr Lewis and his merry band know sod all about this or how to deal with it.

The_Deep

It is neither a fine, nor was CCTV used.

What you have is an invoice for the damage they allege you inflicted on them by allegedly breaching an alleged contract, (bilking). They determine this by using ANPR.

They have six years to take you to court, where imo, if their waterfowl are properly aligned, and the judge is a stickler, they have a good chance of success.

However do not despair, the whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.


her acquaint your self with the riules of the game you now have to play. #

mrmannn38

Thanks for the quick response!

Having read more into this forum, the initial appeal was pretty weak and so I have found out, somewhat in accurate. Going on the private parking fine article I read, I said on my appeal that the data that they have provided was inaccurate as:

1. CCTV fines are allowed 21 days at the reduced rate, not the 14days stated
2. The reduced rate should be 50% of the actual fine (found this out to be not true!?)

I also informed them that I wouldn’t be paying (haven’t got my exact appeal to hand at currently).

They have supplied a POPLA code though and just gave me one of their generic replies back with it, unrelated to anything in my appeal.

As I’m sure you can tell, I’m a real newb at this so I’m sorry if you’re shaking your head in shame at the moment!

Thanks again.

KeithP

You now need to be reading post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will find great detail on how to compile a winning PoPLA appeal.

mrmannn38

Sorry, just to add, the ‘fine’ was issued in the correct time frame

nosferatu1001

What conviction? Allegation, surely....

Just an invoice.
I have NO idea where you got 21 days from; that isnt even true of councils. The 50% bit is, of course, related to council tickets

Was the driver identified? Just say YES or NO

mrmannn38

No name was mentioned.

nosferatu1001

Sigh

YES
or
NO
Bering in mind if you appeal giving a name, and say "I DROVE THE CAR", then while no name is directly mentioned, it is fairly obvious who drove.

mrmannn38

No.

The driver wasn’t identified in any form in the appeal

Coupon-mad

Said person assumed that if they stay sat in the van, they wouldn’t get a ticket

Wow that is madness. VERY naive driving. Of course that is 'parking', so never do that again!

That's like sitting on a red route in London and thinking a passing CEO is the only thing to worry about, and not noticing the cameras there either!

Anyway, the way forward, as KeithP said:

You now need to be reading post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will find great detail on how to compile a winning PoPLA appeal.

Please don't come back saying you 'can't see a case like mine'.

You are not looking for one, you are there to find the POPLA template wording and put it together to make a long appeal.