PARKING CHARGE NOTICE FOR FLUTTERING TICKET.

Trainerman

There are no mixed messages. If I were in your position, I would be following the V A T angle if only to make life as difficult as possible for the scammers. As regards your own PCN, please remember it is not a fine, it is an invoice. It has no legal force until a Judge says it has ..... which is very unlikely. The PPC and debt collector scammers can go on until they are blue in the face about CCJs and risks and so on. It is meaningless UNLESS it goes to Court AND you lose. I suggest you look at it on balance.

fisherjim

Who has told you to pay it?

The PPC want people to break the rules in any way possible they don't manage parking they only manage profits.

The way it is supposed to work is; the ppc considers your appeal on mitigation etc and makes a fair judgement one way or the other.

POPLA considers appeals on the PPC adhering to the process (not mitigation).

The reality is that the PPC rarely let anyone off, their site rules are designed to be inflexible and they only want money anyway.

POPLA is paid for by the PPC's old boys club, so lean their way, most appellants are under the impression POPLA re-consider mitigation, they do not, so they throw away their appeal by re-stating the same what happened story.

Neither outcomes are binding on the motorist, and if you did nothing wrong why would you pay a scammer. Play the game look for loopholes for a POPLA appeal, if it fails let the Muppets decide if it's worth a punt in court and let a judge decide.

phantoms84

Just been reading further into the VAT number on the back of my ticket as its an invalid VAT no. as the gov website states.

So this has got me thinking that although RCP Parking has a valid VAT reg number of :637 0900 47 they state on their website 
 (although please note that we may have a different VAT number for car parks that we manage on behalf of others).

Is this information useful as the VAT reg no.  226 2333 36 is invalid so i'm thinking this pcn would also be?

images provided.

fisherjim

If the car park still looks like this here is your starter for POPLA the signage is totally non existant stop over thinking the VAT number use that a secondary annoyance for the PPC if you like but it won't wash with appealing.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.636831,1.2937109,3a,75y,65.95h,95.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRGFiVb8bHTcuriZqJ9lb-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Coupon-mad

As I already said, the VAT issue is an aside and not a silver bullet for the appeal.  POPLA are not legally trained, so they won't think an invalid VAT number voids the PCN.  Stop looking at the minor separate issue and just do the usual POPLA appeal with the VAT issue just added as a final frightener to make the PPC offer no contest.

phantoms84

Update: My appeal is still with Popla but i recieved a debt collection letter! I contacted Popla to see if they have made a decision and it wasn't for some reason uploaded online and they told me they shouldn't be persuing payment as my appealing is still waiting to be looked at.

What should i do about the letter other than ignore it....Is there anything that i can use in my favour against them sending debt letters when the appeal has not ended?

Thanks in advance for any advice. 

Castle

Not that the BPA will do anything about it, but send a copy to them anyway and ask them to investigate and if you want waste their time ask then why the web page for TNC Collections refers to a entirely different company-Unity Property Ltd, (reg 01639133), and which is claiming to be a member of the BPA but isn't-(no doubt another "admin error").
https://www.tnccollections.com/

phantoms84

So my Popla appeal came to a decision and this is the outcome:

POPLA assessment and decision

12/11/2021

Verification Code

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has failed to demonstrate why they issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given a copy of the PCN within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide a copy of the PCN, in order to demonstrate why the PCN was issued. Upon review of the evidence provided by the operator I can see they have failed to provide a copy of the PCN. As the operator has not provided a copy of the PCN, it has not demonstrated that the PCN is valid. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Thanks for all the advice given.

D_P_Dance

Thee adminytsation fee is unlawful, read this and complain to your MP

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

phantoms84

D_P_Dance said:

Thee adminytsation fee is unlawful, read this and complain to your MP

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Thanks for the advice but i dont need to do anything now as my appeal was accepted.