how important is the use of "I" in golden ticket PCNs

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread tells you about comments stage, and it is for you to spot what you can pick them up on and how to steer the Assessor to the right answer.

fuming1

What do you think of this? Btw thank so much for mentioning about PE refuting the relevance of POFA!



1. The POFA is entirely relevant as the appellant is only the keeper of the vehicle. I reiterate that the NTK is not compliant as there is no mention of keeper liability or POFA. As such the previously mentioned expert rulings of Carly Law and Henry Greenslade should be held in this case.
2. Even the signage in the enclosed images do not allow for clear reading of the terms and conditions concerning grace periods! Additionally there is no evidence of where the car was parked to allow for easy reading of the signs tiny writing regarding this.
3. I note that Parkingeye has merely stated they have permission to act on the landowners behalf. They have not provided written authorisation which is signed, dated and detailed with expiration date.

Redx

Bear in mind you can cut that down by saying The Operator , instead of I note that Parking Eye , or remove I note that etc , cut out the waffle , keep the bullet points short and concise , you are not writing a letter under GCSE conditions

In point one , reiterate that the Driver has not been identified

Grace periods are rarely on signs , they are defined in the BPA Cop , clause #13 , so I hope you downloaded it , read it and compared the evidence pack to it ? Plus any other points like no landowner authority , poor signage , POFA , no driver identified , grace periods etc

I also hope you found the newbies thread near the top of the forum by now ? Third thread down , read post #3 about popla appeals

Remember , you have 2000 characters , not words , so more relevance and less waffle , not even full stops

Good luck

fuming1

Hi I am going through the landlord authority point and I am not sure what they are trying to say in this bit. Also I am doing all this based on an email from popla. I am on holiday so am not at home. Am I likely to have had something sent to my house that I should also be taking into account as I will not be back until after the 7 days is up..?

Thank you ��

ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be
enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

fuming1

Hi having read the newbies bit and the bpa code of practice, I have come up with this based on parkingeye's response to my appeal, is it ok? Thank you! 🙂

fuming1

It would help if I added the response! 🙄

1. The POFA is entirely relevant as the appellant is only the keeper of the vehicle. Parkingeye has still not identified the driver. Indeed on the rear of their their own PCN and reminder notice admit this. I reiterate that the NTK is not compliant as there is no mention of keeper liability or POFA. As such the previously mentioned expert rulings of Carly Law and Henry Greenslade should be held in this case.
2. The signs do not all detail the terms and conditions they merely mention they can be found on another sign in a different location. Even the signage in the enclosed images which do have some terms and conditions do not allow for clear reading! Additionally there is no evidence of where the car was parked to allow for easy reading of the signs tiny writing from the vehicle.
3. I note that Parkingeye has merely stated they have permission to act on the landowners behalf. They have not provided written authorisation which is signed, dated and detailed with expiration date.

Umkomaas

Looks okay to me, it’s just 991 characters in size (you have a max of 2,000) so there’s room for more if you need to add anything, but sometimes less is more.

If categorically you have a Golden Ticket and there has been no inadvertent identification of the driver, then you’ve probably got enough.

Just on your Q from your previous post - there should be nothing sent to you at your home address at this stage in the proceedings, so send off your rebuttal, then lay back and enjoy the rest of your holiday.

fuming1

Thank you so much! The timing wasn't brilliant, but it will feel good to get through it!

Coupon-mad

Add in some words that say this (I'd have this as #2):

It is well known - hopefully to POPLA Assessors as well - that ParkingEye have two types of NTKs. A 'POFA' one with words on the back about keeper liability, and a 'non-POFA' one that omits this, usually in cases where they have failed to serve the NTK within 14 days. In this case they have used the second version (non-POFA) so the wording fails and they have failed to serve it in time to establish any keeper liability.

fuming1

Thanks I'll add that in too - thank you so much all of you! 😃