I think I've messed up my appeal :(

Redx

we do understand , why do you think that BARRY BEAVIS went to 3 courts to try and win his case ?

he lost at the SUPREME COURT so that sets the precedent and is what the PPC will argue at POPLA and in court if it comes to it

and another thing , WHY do you think the bill be Sir Greg Knight has been travelling through both houses in parliament, with its 3rd reading in the Lords today ? yes , to try to bring order and fairness into it, but its not law yet, but give it a few months , hopefully things will improve

if you lost at POPLA they will withdraw the discounted rate and popla will tell you that the full amount is due

but there is no law that says you must pay it even then , because you have the right to defend yourself in court, where a judge will decide, so if you get a CCJ issued by the judge, you are advised to pay up , IN FULL , within say 14 days or one month (whatever the judge says in the judgment)


BTW , its not lying , it says REQUIRED , not COMPELLED , so advice to pay in full or seek legal advice, not a MUST PAY, but advisement to pay

Sammy5

Redx wrote: »

we do understand , why do you think that BARRY BEAVIS went to 3 courts to try and win his case ?

he lost at the SUPREME COURT so that sets the precedent and is what the PPC will argue at POPLA and in court if it comes to it

and another thing , WHY do you think the bill be Sir Greg Knight has been travelling through both houses in parliament, with its 3rd reading in the Lords today ? yes , to try to bring order and fairness into it, but its not law yet, but give it a few months , hopefully things will improve

if you lost at POPLA they will withdraw the discounted rate and popla will tell you that the full amount is due

but there is no law that says you must pay it even then , because you have the right to defend yourself in court, where a judge will decide, so if you get a CCJ issued by the judge, you are advised to pay up , IN FULL , within say 14 days or one month (whatever the judge says in the judgment)


BTW , its not lying , it says REQUIRED , not COMPELLED , so advice to pay in full or seek legal advice, not a MUST PAY, but advisement to pay

Okay, well I'll just have to give it some thought then. £60 is a lot of money, but the alternative is clearly worse, so their scare tactics will most likely reap rewards in this case.

Redx

and that means that you now understand the sc@m, because its not about parking , its about being able to enforce an invoice against somebody for any type of transgression, be it a wheel on the white line , not parked in a bay, inputting the incorrect VRM into a machine , overstaying , wearing a yellow coat on red coat day, anything at all to inflate the invoice and get maximum profit for putting the fear of god into ordinary people

Sammy5

I understood the scam, that wasn't the issue. The purpose of my post was to see if this sort of case (particularly the machine malfunctioning) had been successful in the past. And yes, if I were a millionaire then I'd fight back, but clearly I'm not or I wouldn't have spent my evening trawling the internet in a desperate attempt to fight this thing.

Redx

yes, its called "frustration of contract" so do a search for it, even judges have decided that if a defendant attempted to pay (or thought they had paid) and there was some issue, then its the parking company at fault and have dismissed the claim

if you had asked that in the first place we would have confirmed it

so yes, its been successfuly contested at both popla and in court, as long as suitable arguments have been argued successfully

I just didnt want you thinking that arguing about the charge would get you anywhere, because it definitely wont, so its pointless focussing on the charge, instead of focussing on the real issues in play , prior to BEAVIS , we did argue them , post BEAVIS , we dont argue them

Sammy5

Redx wrote: »

yes, its called "frustration of contract" so do a search for it, even judges have decided that if a defendant attempted to pay (or thought they had paid) and there was some issue, then its the parking company at fault and have dismissed the claim

if you had asked that in the first place we would have confirmed it

so yes, its been successfuly contested at both popla and in court, as long as suitable arguments have been argued successfully

I just didnt want you thinking that arguing about the charge would get you anywhere, because it definitely wont, so its pointless focussing on the charge, instead of focussing on the real issues in play , prior to BEAVIS , we did argue them , post BEAVIS , we dont argue them

Okay, thanks. The value of the charge was an afterthought, but I suppose does form the basis of the logic behind my argument (why would anyone deliberately not pay 70p when risking a £100 charge). So maybe it's not helpful to my case, I don't know.

Thanks for the advice, I'll do some research on that in a moment.

Redx

that is the point of the signage, the hourly rates etc are in large fonts and the default rate is in a tiny font, check their signs if you dont believe me , the £100 charge will be small and buried in the small print

effectively they should state £100 in a very large font as the default rate UNLESS the driver ensures the rules are met, in which case its say £1 per hour from entry to exit

so its THIS LARGE RATE unless the driver pays £3 for 3 hours on site, for example

the point about this sc@m is that it preys on people who are unwary, dont read the small print and it uses every possible sc@m to trap them

hence why POOR AND INDEQUATE SIGNAGE features in every appeal and defence (or should do) , plus the BPA CoP or the IPC CoP (depending which AOS they are in

I think the big signs on the buses in Manchester state that the standard fare is £20, but when you tell the driver you want a dayrider ticket and he charges you say £4.50 , he doesnt tell you its £20 nor charge you £20 either, because he charges you the daily ticket price and not the standard fare price. but get on with yeterdays ticket and get caught by an inspector and you get charged £20 for bilking

also , read this thread about ticket machine issues, which includes references to several other threads about pdt machine issues etc

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5952977/pcn-due-to-the-only-machine-being-broken-2016

Sammy5

I've tried again calling the number they provided in the car park and it's option 3 for machine faults, but they say in their letter that it's option 6 - is this likely to help me if I do go through with an appeal (that they provide incorrect information about their own phone system options)? Although I'm not sure how to record the message as proof. I don't think it's the same message I got when I called on the day, as I would've gone through to the faults option. There were lots of vehicles in the car park that day with no ticket, perhaps they had the same problem, but maybe they did speak to someone. I'll probably never know.

Sammy5

Are POPLA decisions based solely on provable facts, or do they take into consideration likelihood (as Judge Rinder would say, 'I need to be more certain than not...')? I feel I ought to fight this, as I paid for the ticket and it's absolute !!!! that I should have to pay a fine as well. If I do, which points should I focus on? I had this in mind:

1) Machine not working correctly, frustration of contract.

2) They say they've checked their records for payment, but not made any reference to the machine being checked for faults. I wonder how many other people got tickets that day?

3) They don't acknowledge that I called them or that I have provided proof of that call. They instead state that I could have called and used option 6 (on the current message, it'd actually be option 3, so they don't even know their own answer messages).

4) That it makes no sense to park in a car park for 40 minutes and deliberately avoid paying for a 70p ticket, knowing the fine is £100 and that there are clearly visible cameras.

5) They make no reference to my suggestion that they check CCTV, which shows me taking my wallet out and putting money in the machine.

Are any of these points likely to win any favour with POPLA? I'm sorry if this has been covered, I've gone through loads of stickies and I couldn't find out on what basis their decisions are made. Logic? Common sense? Reason? Or hard facts?

Any help would be very much appreciated and please go easy on me, I'm having a pretty bad time of it right now (aside from this ticket, which is just the icing on the cake).

waamo

POPLA go on assertion and evidence. If you say the machine wasn't working then the operator will need to show evidence it was.

That means point 2 is redundant. For point 3 the same principle applies. You say the number was wrong they need to show it isn't. Point 4 is irrelevant and point 5 pretty much.

Do they have landowner permission to operate? Assert they don't and make them prove it. Same with signs. Make them prove they are well lit, the right size and well placed.