One parking solution PCN

Scrapit

and so to the task at hand....

Scrapit

Scrapit said:

Ok, impotent pedantry (is that a typo too )  aside, it appear that points 2, 4, and possibly 5 are not considered. Likewise point 6 as i currently understand it.
For clarity can i post a list of the points being made and enter a discussion on the validity of said points so i can concentrate on the relevant ones? Further to this, from the newbies guide, is the point to compile excessive pages as part of the appeal to dissuade the PPC from conntinuing or is this not the case?

My points are as follows:

1.       The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

 

2.       The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

 

3.       No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

 

4.       Failure to comply with the data protection ‘ICO Code of Practice’ applicable to ANPR.

 

5.       Vehicle Images contained in the PCN – Non-compliant to the BPA Code of Practice.

 

6.       No Evidence of Advertising Consent for Signage.

 

7.       No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice) and the vehicle left within a very reasonable time.

for clarity, at no point has the driver been identified

KeithP

Scrapit said:

Ok, impotent pedantry (is that a typo too )  aside...

Is that a typo too?

Surely you meant important pedantry? 

Scrapit

KeithP said:

Scrapit said:

Ok, impotent pedantry (is that a typo too )  aside...

Is that a typo too?

Surely you meant important pedantry? 

a jokes not funny when you have to explain it...ow, theres no roll eyes smiley here.

nosferatu1001

Are they compliant with pofa? If yes, then the identity of the driver is unimportant. 

Scrapit

nosferatu1001 said:

Are they compliant with pofa? If yes, then the identity of the driver is unimportant. 

As far as I can tell it is a correctly issued NTK. The driver hasnt been identified in the first appeal or the letter of complaint to the land owner or since. There wasnt a screen PCN, just the NTK PCN received through the post. It just seems unfair that the charge can become the keepers responsibility.

nosferatu1001

It's been a law for a few years. Bought and paid for. 

It's a surprise, most ppcs don't manage. Did they correctly state the period of parking?

Scrapit

nosferatu1001 said:

It's been a law for a few years. Bought and paid for. 

It's a surprise, most ppcs don't manage. Did they correctly state the period of parking?

I believe so.

nosferatu1001

So they give a real from and to, and not time spent moving in front of cameras, for example?
have we seen a copy to check?

Scrapit

Ive not posted the NTK on here