We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Help - PCN issued by All Parking Service UK Ltd
Ramsie
Posts: 2 Newbie
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum and I have been issued a Parking Charge Notice. The letter was sent by PCN Admin Centre but it says that All Parking Services UK Ltd is the client. Total amount payable is £100 for 'Not displaying a valid permit'.
Picture evidence taken by an attendant but no NTD issued to me or placed on car windscreen. NTK received in post 10 days after contravention date.
I have read the newbie thread and used the appeal template letter to appeal online. I received a letter back stating appeal has been rejected and they have supplied a POPLA code. No detailed breakdown of the 'charge' cost provided and instead made reference to the ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis case.
I have searched the forum looking at other people's appeals and have put together my appeal as below.
A couple of things to point out:
1. The initial PCN letter states the client as ALL PARKING SERVICE UK LTD and in the appeal rejection letter it states the client as ALL PARKING SERVICES LTD. Can this spelling mistake help void the PCN?
2. I revisited the car park and the photo of the sign provided as evidence is approximately 50-60 meters away from where the car was parked, the sign is also around a corner completely out of sight. There are 2 other signs which i don't remember seeing as I got out of the car and looked around and I believe they may have been put up recently which is why the sign at the back of the car park was photographed.
Location: goo.gl/maps/Wpvkqn4JEbqutEf2A
Please let me know if I'm missing any key points. Thank you all!
Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle, I would like to make an appeal to cancel the parking charge notice issued by All Parking Services UK Ltd at Roman Road, Cricklewood NW2 6GH for reasons as stated below:
1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
2. Inadequate Signage and Contract not agreed by driver
3. All Parking Services UK Ltd cannot claim a damages charge under the tort of trespass/no contract exists.
4. No Notice to Driver and no audit trail showing an authorised device/authorised person took the images.
1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, All Parking Services UK Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put All Parking Services UK Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between All Parking Services UK Ltd and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to All Parking Services UK Ltd.
All Parking Services UK Ltd do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, All Parking Services UK Ltd have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.
2. Inadequate Signage and Contract not agreed by driver
I believe that there is a lack of adequate signage at the car park as there was no prominent signs in view from where the car was photographed. From the photo evidence of the sign provided by All Parking Services Ltd, the terms and conditions are in far too small a font to reasonably be read from within a vehicle, whether stationary or moving. Please refer to Figure 1. below.
The information provided around operation times on the sign is far too small to read, this information is important, yet the font has been reduced making it far too difficult to read. Information provided of any type of charge or sum of cost is even more difficult to read as the font is even smaller.
The signage at the site laid out by All Parking Services UK Ltd does not communicate full contractual terms and conditions, I believe that these signs are inadequate and I question the validity or legality in law for using this photo as proof of any wrongdoing as this does not follow the BPA Code of Practice as stated in paragraphs 20.5a and 18.3.
I put All Parking Services UK Ltd to strict proof otherwise. As well as an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the site map with a clear audit trail of when signs were put up, they must also show photos as evidence.
The signage was not seen from where the car was parked, so there was no valid contract formed between All Parking Services UK Ltd and the driver.
I revisited the car park area on 01/04/2019 and have clear evidence to show the signage photo provided as evidence is not visible from where the car was photographed. The photos provided by All Parking Services UK Ltd as evidence show the car parked at the front of the car park entrance yet the sign in the photo (sign on a wooden fence) is located at the back of the car park, this area is in fact the entrance to a different car park for ‘Access Self Storage’.
To add the sign is located approximately 50-60m away, around a corner and completely out of view from where the car is parked. Please refer to below photos which show where the sign is placed and the surrounding area, I have also included google street view photos and the area layout to show the distance between the car and sign.
Figure 1. Sign on wooden fence
Figure 2. Car parked at front of car park
Figure 3. Sign located at back of car park out of view
Figure 4. View of distance between sign and car
Figure 5. Map of car park area x marks the signage and blue the car
Due to the lack of prominent signage, thus no performance or - nor breach of - the contract was possible. The sign can only be read from the first place the driver can stop; The supreme court Beavis Vs Parking Eye states very clearly in its judgment that the contract is performed by performance in parking and leaving the vehicle parked and is dependent upon prominent clear signs which have the sum of the parking charge in 'large lettering'. I do not believe there was a sign adjacent to the car where the sum of £100 would have been legible as I saw nothing in large lettering so cannot have accepted any contract from signage there at that place.
I see no evidence of pictures of any signs informing a driver how the data captured by their 'surveillance cameras' (in this case, it appears to be a mobile phone) will be used. These signs are inadequate notice of terms and conditions and also inadequate as regards to this operator's duties as a data handler of photographic images of vehicles, whether ANPR or CCTV or other camera pictures, all such data falls under their ICO registration and the BPA CoP.
The car park signs do not warn motorists that data captured by its so-called 'surveillance' cameras would be used for the purpose of trying to enforce cases of trespass. Nor do they warn motorists that data captured by its cameras would be used for the purpose of pursuing unpaid parking charges.
3. The sum is extravagant and unconscionable: this case differs from and is not comparable to ParkingEye v Beavis in any way and can only be a matter of trespass for a landowner only.
The sum is extravagant and unconscionable: it does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the Landowner.
I put All Parking Services UK Ltd to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated.
All Parking Services UK Ltd seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors might believe the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimizing all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (All Parking Services UK Ltd and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.
There the similarities end. The Beavis case was entirely different and has no blanket application here, except in favour of my case as appellant to support the view that - in the absence of any other commercial justification similar to the Beavis case - this sort of charge for unauthorized stopping (trespass) must still be proportionate. All Parking Services UK Ltd have shown no commercial justification nor 'legitimate interest' in charging £100.00.
The ParkingEye v Beavis decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking license' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.
Each case must still turn on its own facts.
The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals. Indeed, if there is no offer to park at this spot on this site then as driver I can only be considered a trespasser, because without offer, consideration between both parties and acceptance there is no contract and can be no breach of contract.
By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract.
As regards to the Beavis case, it was made plain that the 'penalty rule' is certainly 'engaged' in parking ticket cases and the facts of each case will determine if the penalty rule has been disengaged. The penalty rule could have been abolished in the Beavis case but abolition of that 'useful tool' was very deliberately NOT the case.
In complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with a license to park but no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. All Parking Services UK Ltd have failed to demonstrate any other wider commercial or socio-economic justification for this exorbitant sum of £100.00 and POPLA cannot make their case for them, therefore the charge remains unenforceable under the penalty rule.
But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, it is an allegation that I could NOT park where I did, even for seconds, therefore it can only be a matter of trespass. So the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'.
In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.
The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' and the judgment has absolutely no application to a situation with NO licence nor contract, where a driver is accused of stopping where it is not permitted (unbeknown to me because the signage was not prominent). No application of Beavis is possible, save that I would draw the Assessor's attention to the points raised in the Beavis judgment about trespass which were nothing new and summarise the position as regards tort as opposed to contract:
At 97: ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass.''
Lord Mance at 190: ''Mr Beavis... was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.''
Lord Mance at 192: ''...it is not clear to me on what basis, other than contractual, the driver of a vehicle can incur any obligation to pay a sum in the nature of damages as a result of a trespass or other tort, however much notice was given to him or her when the vehicle was parked.''
The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty.
So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this allegation of unauthorized stopping (i.e. trespass, not contract).
As All Parking Services UK Ltd Ltd have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for demanding £100.00 they fall foul of the penalty rule and have no locus as they are not a landowner. ParkingEye would have lost the argument if they had taken a trespass case to Supreme Court level.
4. Lack of any Notice to Driver and no audit trail showing an authorised device/authorised person took the images.
Although the photograph appears to have been taken by a person with a phone there was no attempt to serve a Notice to Driver to me or attach it to the vehicle. This method means there is no audit trail and no reliable or checkable evidence of who took the picture and when, how the camera was authorised or even if the person who took the picture was authorised, or even conversant with the BPA CoP.
For all I know, this could have been a PCN based upon a member of the public taking a photo on their phone. There is no audit trail to confirm anything about the reliability or timing of this image of the car and All Parking Services UK Ltd have breached the CoP by neither following one method of service (windscreen PCN on the day) nor the other (ANPR).
Certainly I saw no liveried van nor anyone in uniform and if he/she had approached me to issue a PCN I would have had a fair chance to move on a few seconds quicker and All Parking Services UK Ltd would have mitigated any alleged loss to the landowner caused by the supposed trespass.
I look forward to POPLA's decision and reserve the right to comment upon any evidence.
I'm new to the forum and I have been issued a Parking Charge Notice. The letter was sent by PCN Admin Centre but it says that All Parking Services UK Ltd is the client. Total amount payable is £100 for 'Not displaying a valid permit'.
Picture evidence taken by an attendant but no NTD issued to me or placed on car windscreen. NTK received in post 10 days after contravention date.
I have read the newbie thread and used the appeal template letter to appeal online. I received a letter back stating appeal has been rejected and they have supplied a POPLA code. No detailed breakdown of the 'charge' cost provided and instead made reference to the ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis case.
I have searched the forum looking at other people's appeals and have put together my appeal as below.
A couple of things to point out:
1. The initial PCN letter states the client as ALL PARKING SERVICE UK LTD and in the appeal rejection letter it states the client as ALL PARKING SERVICES LTD. Can this spelling mistake help void the PCN?
2. I revisited the car park and the photo of the sign provided as evidence is approximately 50-60 meters away from where the car was parked, the sign is also around a corner completely out of sight. There are 2 other signs which i don't remember seeing as I got out of the car and looked around and I believe they may have been put up recently which is why the sign at the back of the car park was photographed.
Location: goo.gl/maps/Wpvkqn4JEbqutEf2A
Please let me know if I'm missing any key points. Thank you all!
Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle, I would like to make an appeal to cancel the parking charge notice issued by All Parking Services UK Ltd at Roman Road, Cricklewood NW2 6GH for reasons as stated below:
1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
2. Inadequate Signage and Contract not agreed by driver
3. All Parking Services UK Ltd cannot claim a damages charge under the tort of trespass/no contract exists.
4. No Notice to Driver and no audit trail showing an authorised device/authorised person took the images.
1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, All Parking Services UK Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put All Parking Services UK Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between All Parking Services UK Ltd and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to All Parking Services UK Ltd.
All Parking Services UK Ltd do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, All Parking Services UK Ltd have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.
2. Inadequate Signage and Contract not agreed by driver
I believe that there is a lack of adequate signage at the car park as there was no prominent signs in view from where the car was photographed. From the photo evidence of the sign provided by All Parking Services Ltd, the terms and conditions are in far too small a font to reasonably be read from within a vehicle, whether stationary or moving. Please refer to Figure 1. below.
The information provided around operation times on the sign is far too small to read, this information is important, yet the font has been reduced making it far too difficult to read. Information provided of any type of charge or sum of cost is even more difficult to read as the font is even smaller.
The signage at the site laid out by All Parking Services UK Ltd does not communicate full contractual terms and conditions, I believe that these signs are inadequate and I question the validity or legality in law for using this photo as proof of any wrongdoing as this does not follow the BPA Code of Practice as stated in paragraphs 20.5a and 18.3.
I put All Parking Services UK Ltd to strict proof otherwise. As well as an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the site map with a clear audit trail of when signs were put up, they must also show photos as evidence.
The signage was not seen from where the car was parked, so there was no valid contract formed between All Parking Services UK Ltd and the driver.
I revisited the car park area on 01/04/2019 and have clear evidence to show the signage photo provided as evidence is not visible from where the car was photographed. The photos provided by All Parking Services UK Ltd as evidence show the car parked at the front of the car park entrance yet the sign in the photo (sign on a wooden fence) is located at the back of the car park, this area is in fact the entrance to a different car park for ‘Access Self Storage’.
To add the sign is located approximately 50-60m away, around a corner and completely out of view from where the car is parked. Please refer to below photos which show where the sign is placed and the surrounding area, I have also included google street view photos and the area layout to show the distance between the car and sign.
Figure 1. Sign on wooden fence
Figure 2. Car parked at front of car park
Figure 3. Sign located at back of car park out of view
Figure 4. View of distance between sign and car
Figure 5. Map of car park area x marks the signage and blue the car
Due to the lack of prominent signage, thus no performance or - nor breach of - the contract was possible. The sign can only be read from the first place the driver can stop; The supreme court Beavis Vs Parking Eye states very clearly in its judgment that the contract is performed by performance in parking and leaving the vehicle parked and is dependent upon prominent clear signs which have the sum of the parking charge in 'large lettering'. I do not believe there was a sign adjacent to the car where the sum of £100 would have been legible as I saw nothing in large lettering so cannot have accepted any contract from signage there at that place.
I see no evidence of pictures of any signs informing a driver how the data captured by their 'surveillance cameras' (in this case, it appears to be a mobile phone) will be used. These signs are inadequate notice of terms and conditions and also inadequate as regards to this operator's duties as a data handler of photographic images of vehicles, whether ANPR or CCTV or other camera pictures, all such data falls under their ICO registration and the BPA CoP.
The car park signs do not warn motorists that data captured by its so-called 'surveillance' cameras would be used for the purpose of trying to enforce cases of trespass. Nor do they warn motorists that data captured by its cameras would be used for the purpose of pursuing unpaid parking charges.
3. The sum is extravagant and unconscionable: this case differs from and is not comparable to ParkingEye v Beavis in any way and can only be a matter of trespass for a landowner only.
The sum is extravagant and unconscionable: it does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the Landowner.
I put All Parking Services UK Ltd to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated.
All Parking Services UK Ltd seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors might believe the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimizing all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (All Parking Services UK Ltd and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.
There the similarities end. The Beavis case was entirely different and has no blanket application here, except in favour of my case as appellant to support the view that - in the absence of any other commercial justification similar to the Beavis case - this sort of charge for unauthorized stopping (trespass) must still be proportionate. All Parking Services UK Ltd have shown no commercial justification nor 'legitimate interest' in charging £100.00.
The ParkingEye v Beavis decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking license' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.
Each case must still turn on its own facts.
The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals. Indeed, if there is no offer to park at this spot on this site then as driver I can only be considered a trespasser, because without offer, consideration between both parties and acceptance there is no contract and can be no breach of contract.
By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract.
As regards to the Beavis case, it was made plain that the 'penalty rule' is certainly 'engaged' in parking ticket cases and the facts of each case will determine if the penalty rule has been disengaged. The penalty rule could have been abolished in the Beavis case but abolition of that 'useful tool' was very deliberately NOT the case.
In complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with a license to park but no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. All Parking Services UK Ltd have failed to demonstrate any other wider commercial or socio-economic justification for this exorbitant sum of £100.00 and POPLA cannot make their case for them, therefore the charge remains unenforceable under the penalty rule.
But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, it is an allegation that I could NOT park where I did, even for seconds, therefore it can only be a matter of trespass. So the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'.
In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.
The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' and the judgment has absolutely no application to a situation with NO licence nor contract, where a driver is accused of stopping where it is not permitted (unbeknown to me because the signage was not prominent). No application of Beavis is possible, save that I would draw the Assessor's attention to the points raised in the Beavis judgment about trespass which were nothing new and summarise the position as regards tort as opposed to contract:
At 97: ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass.''
Lord Mance at 190: ''Mr Beavis... was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.''
Lord Mance at 192: ''...it is not clear to me on what basis, other than contractual, the driver of a vehicle can incur any obligation to pay a sum in the nature of damages as a result of a trespass or other tort, however much notice was given to him or her when the vehicle was parked.''
The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty.
So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this allegation of unauthorized stopping (i.e. trespass, not contract).
As All Parking Services UK Ltd Ltd have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for demanding £100.00 they fall foul of the penalty rule and have no locus as they are not a landowner. ParkingEye would have lost the argument if they had taken a trespass case to Supreme Court level.
4. Lack of any Notice to Driver and no audit trail showing an authorised device/authorised person took the images.
Although the photograph appears to have been taken by a person with a phone there was no attempt to serve a Notice to Driver to me or attach it to the vehicle. This method means there is no audit trail and no reliable or checkable evidence of who took the picture and when, how the camera was authorised or even if the person who took the picture was authorised, or even conversant with the BPA CoP.
For all I know, this could have been a PCN based upon a member of the public taking a photo on their phone. There is no audit trail to confirm anything about the reliability or timing of this image of the car and All Parking Services UK Ltd have breached the CoP by neither following one method of service (windscreen PCN on the day) nor the other (ANPR).
Certainly I saw no liveried van nor anyone in uniform and if he/she had approached me to issue a PCN I would have had a fair chance to move on a few seconds quicker and All Parking Services UK Ltd would have mitigated any alleged loss to the landowner caused by the supposed trespass.
I look forward to POPLA's decision and reserve the right to comment upon any evidence.
0
Comments
-
The initial PCN letter states the client as ALL PARKING SERVICE UK LTD
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07896452
No, because the rejection letter isn't an official document like the NTK.and in the appeal rejection letter it states the client as ALL PARKING SERVICES LTD. Can this spelling mistake help void the PCN?
Which car park is it? I can't tell:
https://goo.gl/maps/Vx5q5vk65cUGrbch6
Show us both sides of the NTK please. Is it a POFA version?
Why are you adding words that blab about who the driver was?as I saw nothing in large lettering so cannot have accepted any contract from signage there at that place.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for your reply Coupon-mad
To answer your questions:No, because the rejection letter isn't an official document like the NTK
Thanks for clarifying.Which car park is it? I can't tell:
It's the bays on the left hand side along the brown brick wall, the google street-view photo shows no signage (but photo is dated Feb-18), when I revisited on 01/04/2019 there were 2 small signs, one at the front and the other at the end of the grey building.
NTK page 1 & 2 links:
i148.photobucket.com/albums/s11/ramsie1/NTK%20no%20ref.jpg
i148.photobucket.com/albums/s11/ramsie1/NTK%202.jpegWhy are you adding words that blab about who the driver was?
I didn't realise that was there (was a copy and paste from another appeal), I will go through the appeal wording to see if there's anymore text that reference who the driver was.
Picture of the signage APS provided:
i148.photobucket.com/albums/s11/ramsie1/Sign%20APS.png0 -
Assets sufficient to buy a new budget Ford Fiesta, so not a major player.
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Picture of the signage APS provided:
https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/ramsie1/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxNTE5ODU4MjE=/?ref=
What a blurry sign, on a fence and with the £100 in the smallest font (illegible).
NTK looks POFA compliant to me:
https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/ramsie1/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxNTE5ODU4MTk=/?ref=
https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/ramsie1/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxNTE5ODU4MjA=/?ref=
But still do your POPLA appeal as keeper, not implying the driver. You've used an old version, for example your #1 is not the version we currently recommend, as linked in the NEWBIES post #3, and the signage point is normally longer than your point, and you will need to embed images of the lack of signs if you can get some extra pics showing they are bot in the bay/near the cars and are unreadable.
They don't need a NTD and this has no legs, so remove it:No Notice to Driver and no audit trail showing an authorised device/authorised person took the images.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Have received a same letter in the same place in August 2019 - any updates on the outcome of this POPLA compaint?0
-
A couple of factors that I think there are grounds to invalidate these fines include:
1. the entry sign does not mention the fact that the area is parking controlled and by whom
2. The Ts and Cs sign needs to be minimum 45 x 45cm, (have not checked if this is so)
3. The penalty charge amount has to be one of the prominent letters on the sign (which it is not)
This is based on the BPA code of practice inc Sections 18.2
Search for BPA AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf0 -
This is the same company and road I received a PCN from, but only received a 2nd letter which was issued AFTER i'd be allowed to appeal according to their systems.
How did your appeal go?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards