Popla Draft Vs Private Parking Solutions

Coupon-mad

The Code of Practice from Jan 2020 doesn't allow a ten minute consideration period plus a ten minute grace period. 

 You need to read the current version.

What was the PCN for?   Not displaying a permit?  Where's their evidence of that (dashboard pics)?

1505grandad

To confirm, is the ppc is:-?

Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited

http://www.privateparkingsolutions.co.uk

As above you need to refer to BPA CoP V8

SimpsonSimonSon

I will change the section regarding Grace periods, thank you for pointing that out, I'm stating the driver was there  for less than 5 mins so just using the consideration period should hopefully be sufficient. 

Here is the original picture of the ntk that the company sent me as well as the follow up email they responded with after I refused to pay (using the template off the newbie thread).

SimpsonSimonSon

Coupon-mad said:

The Code of Practice from Jan 2020 doesn't allow a ten minute consideration period plus a ten minute grace period. 

 You need to read the current version.

What was the PCN for?   Not displaying a permit?  Where's their evidence of that (dashboard pics)?

Yes I guess it was for failure to display a permit. From the evidence pictures they it looks like someone took pictures on their phone. My argument is that the driver wasn't parked and the time spent there was less that 10 mins. I'm using black box telemetric data as evidence.

nosferatu1001

Exactly. No contract offered. 
BUt you really need to understand that precision in court documents is absolutely required. You cannot put the wrong claimant name down, EVER. 

SimpsonSimonSon

1505grandad said:

To confirm, is the ppc is:-?

Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited

http://www.privateparkingsolutions.co.uk

As above you need to refer to BPA CoP V8

That would be the chancers.

SimpsonSimonSon

nosferatu1001 said:

Exactly. No contract offered. 
BUt you really need to understand that precision in court documents is absolutely required. You cannot put the wrong claimant name down, EVER. 

The claimant being PPS?

nosferatu1001

No.
The claimant is full legal name as shown on the claim form
Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited
Do not shorten it
Do not use abbreviations
If in doubt do the obvious - refer to them as the claimant and there is no ambiguity then!

Le_Kirk

This does not make sense: -

3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 4) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements 5) No Evidence that I as the keeper of the the vehicle am liable for an to charge

Change this incorrect grammar: -

The driver of the vehicle during this time could of have pulled up read the PPS sign re-entered the vehicle and left the site.

and any other instances of similar.

SimpsonSimonSon

Thank you both.