''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' template, doesn't quite fit - help!

GetMoney

Hello, hoping for a bit of guidance.

I've read a number of threads including the newbie thread, these are definitely a fountain of knowledge, although I'm still a bit stuck.

My current PCN notice is with an IPC accredited operator which has led me to the "one size fits all" first appeal.

However, this approach asks a number of questions that do not relate to the type of fine or have already been provided on the appeals portal (photos).

I can take out the photos element of the template as that has been provided already but do I still go ahead with the rest? Specifically the PDT machine?

This fine relates to a residential parking bay where the permit fell off but is paid monthly in advance. Or am I just reading too much into this and need to act as an unaware "keeper" of the vehicle?

Thanks in advance!

waamo

It really is a one size fits all. It's purpose is to get a POPLA code without revealing who was driving. You should send it unchanged and await your code.

KeithP

Do as Waamo says.

Anyway, how do you know you have seen ALL the photos - which is what the appeal asks for?

GetMoney

Brilliant, thank you for the speedy responses!

KeithP

That's what the word carefully means.

Under no circumstances give away clues to the driver's identity.

With that in mind, I suggest you edit your most recent post.
The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and can try and use your posts against you.

Anyway, that won't change an appeal decision.
The PPC will just say "but you still didn't display the permit, therefore the PCN was issued correctly".

Coupon-mad

You can remove the PDT machine part if it's not a PDT machine car park; it's common sense people can remove that. No need for a thread about it.

The whole point is to say something to get a POPLA code, that doesn't say who was driving.

You could even upload a copy of the permit the resident pays for, again without saying who the driver was. The NEWBIES thread says that too, you can provide evidence, but carefully.

If this is UKPC please no posts about them asking who was driving...

GetMoney

Ok that's great, thanks for all your help.

Criminal how these fines can exist.

jenpal66

Can someone please post the newbie #2 thread as am unable to login at the moment as it won't accept the new password

fisherjim

jenpal66 wrote: »

Can someone please post the newbie #2 thread as am unable to login at the moment as it won't accept the new password

What do you mean?


We can't post all that thread on someone else's thread for you, and if you have registered with a new id you can see it yourself.

jenpal66

thanks have done this but it won't accept my allocated password from the forum, have tried a few times case sensitive etc., might you be able to help if I tell you my issue???

Thanks

The_Deep

Do not get too hung up on keeper/driver here. In most residential cases, if the lease gives one unfettered rights to park, it is better for the leaseholder to admit to being the driver if this is the case. Read this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

What does your lease/AST/parking contract say about parking? Does it require you to display a permit and pay a charge (it is not a fine) to a third party if it it not on show. Nearly all residential PCNs issisued by these |PPCs are unlawful.

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has cleared Parliament and hopefully, this will become law shortly.

So, you know what to do, complain like Friar Tuck to your MP.