How can a third party - 'the keeper' be responsible for someone else's alleged contract?

Totum20

Fruitcake said:

Totum20 said:

Ralph-y said:

which PPC? and where ? please

Ralph

Thanks for asking

Alliance Parking. Swansea. I believe alliance have a contract with an, as yet, elusive landowner for a marked bay car park, but apparently the PCN was issued on an access road to the car park that until earlier this year had no signage on it.

If you tell us the location, someone here may have information about it.

When did the signage change? How long afterwards did the alleged event take place? The scammers should allow a bedding in period after any change before PCNs are issued.

Matrix One in Enterprise Park Swansea. Two businesses have allotted spaces in the carpark for the building - one is the Ambulance HQ. The side road is always used as an over-fill when car parks are full.

The signage was not there before Covid-19 Lockdown so, around late February, and was put up sometime after. Apparently the PCN was issued mid-May, bang in the middle of lockdown.

Your bedding-in period is interesting, since it is impossible the majority of people would have seen the new signage because everyone is working from home.

Fruitcake

Check what the IPC CoP says about bedding in, if anything at all. It is/was in the BPA CoP but there is no guarantee it will be used by the IPC as well.

Redx

Totum20 said:

Le_Kirk said:

If this will be the first appeal, just use the blue text appeal in the NEWBIE sticky first post, send it with no additions, deletions or amendments.  If the driver is not known to the PPC, it is more difficult for them to hold the keeper liable.

I am doing this thanks. My only question regarding the text is the relevance to my situation. The NTK says the vehicle was "Present on an access road, without a written permission." No PDT and no references to time periods.

Basically, I believe the only avenue for appeal is questioning their right to be enforcing the area and the justification of the £100 fee. 

I will be following all other advice as best practice to see where it leads out of principle

Naming the driver removes the keeper from liability , if it's not the same person of course , give their name and a serviceable address for papers

Or follow the other advice given in this thread

But first task is check if POFA applies , did the NTK comply ?

They do not have to justify the £100 fee , it's been standard for a decade , plus £85 was allowed in the Beavis case a few years ago , so no mileage in arguing that figure

Ralph-y

try Google street view for past pics of the signs

  1.    Drag and drop the yellow ‘Pegman’ onto the desired street. (To do this, left click on the yellow man at the bottom right of the map and, keeping the mouse button held down, drag him across the screen, only letting go when you are on top of the road or place you want to look at. If it doesn’t work for you the first time you will need to try again!).
 2.    When the man lands, the map changes to show you street imagery, and a dark grey box appears at the top left of the map.  Click the tiny clock symbol in the dark grey square – see screenshot below.
 3.    Use the slider that appears to go further back in time, then click on the small map above the slider. Street View will then show you historical views. You can change the year by clicking on the slider again. You can also navigate your way around Street View just as you would in a more up-to-date map.
 4.    To exit Street View, click the back (left) arrow in the original dark grey box.
 5.    N.B.Historic imagery isn’t available for everywhere in Street View.

Ralph

Fruitcake

I've had a look on GSV and there are no images other than from 2018, so I don't think they will help much other than to show what the road looked like before the signs were changed.

Coupon-mad

But first task is check if POFA applies , did the NTK comply ?

As Redx says - are you assuming that the NTK is a POFA one or have you fully compared it to para 8 or 9 of sch4?

Totum20

Coupon-mad said:

But first task is check if POFA applies , did the NTK comply ?

As Redx says - are you assuming that the NTK is a POFA one or have you fully compared it to para 8 or 9 of sch4?

It does comply. To the letter. My only avenue is to question their right to patrol that area - which i'm looking into.

Fruitcake

Totum20 said:

Coupon-mad said:

But first task is check if POFA applies , did the NTK comply ?

As Redx says - are you assuming that the NTK is a POFA one or have you fully compared it to para 8 or 9 of sch4?

It does comply. To the letter. My only avenue is to question their right to patrol that area - which i'm looking into.

Are you saying all the signage is on a par with that in the Beavis case? 

Totum20

Redx said:

Totum20 said:

Le_Kirk said:

If this will be the first appeal, just use the blue text appeal in the NEWBIE sticky first post, send it with no additions, deletions or amendments.  If the driver is not known to the PPC, it is more difficult for them to hold the keeper liable.

I am doing this thanks. My only question regarding the text is the relevance to my situation. The NTK says the vehicle was "Present on an access road, without a written permission." No PDT and no references to time periods.

Basically, I believe the only avenue for appeal is questioning their right to be enforcing the area and the justification of the £100 fee. 

I will be following all other advice as best practice to see where it leads out of principle

Naming the driver removes the keeper from liability , if it's not the same person of course , give their name and a serviceable address for papers

Or follow the other advice given in this thread

But first task is check if POFA applies , did the NTK comply ?

They do not have to justify the £100 fee , it's been standard for a decade , plus £85 was allowed in the Beavis case a few years ago , so no mileage in arguing that figure

The driver is an NHS Ambulance employee and was caught out because the signs never used to be there and the road was always used to park on. They were called in for an important meeting during lock-down and by all accounts the street was desrted.

They are still under immmense pressure, and stress, hence my hesitence in declaring them. I'm trying to protect them from this unecessary strain. Im trying to establish whether its easier to appeal as keeper, or whether the drivers position as an essential worker responding to Covid-19 planning will be accepted as mitigating cicrumstances.

Fruitcake

PPCs do not do mitigating circumstances. The IAS are worse than the BPA, so any possible "leniency" the BPA might have towards a keyworker will not be entertained by an IAS member.