URGENT DEADLINE ONE PARKING SOLUTION APPEAL HELP NEEDED

Fruitcake

InaHaze said:

Fruitcake said:

As an aside, how did you get on with the previous cases/PoPLA appeals from three years ago?

Gosh Fruitcake, I can’t remember to be honest, I certainly appreciated everyone’s help, I know my daughter has a hefty fine that she is still paying off deducted directly from her disability monies, but she did manage to keep her licence. I’m wracking my brain, I think I had to get a local solicitor to deal with it because they listed it in a court miles away for whatever reason and I gave him proof of posting etc. I was just reading it myself a minute ago and it brought back some painful memories of the stress I was under at the time, albeit nothing has changed 🙄 one day!? 

That doesn't make sense. Your previous thread was at PoPLA appeal stage concerning two people who had each received PCNs for loading or unloading at a private residence.

InaHaze

Fruitcake said:

InaHaze said:

Fruitcake said:

As an aside, how did you get on with the previous cases/PoPLA appeals from three years ago?

Gosh Fruitcake, I can’t remember to be honest, I certainly appreciated everyone’s help, I know my daughter has a hefty fine that she is still paying off deducted directly from her disability monies, but she did manage to keep her licence. I’m wracking my brain, I think I had to get a local solicitor to deal with it because they listed it in a court miles away for whatever reason and I gave him proof of posting etc. I was just reading it myself a minute ago and it brought back some painful memories of the stress I was under at the time, albeit nothing has changed 🙄 one day!? 

That doesn't make sense. Your previous thread was at PoPLA appeal stage concerning two people who had each received PCNs for loading or unloading at a private residence.

Lol! See what I mean, my dizzy head! There was a different one that I had in my head that was someone had used her car & got speeding ticket! Doh! 

The Popla one was won thank goodness! 🙏🏼

InaHaze

Fruitcake said:

We really need to know what happened. We need to know the date of the alleged event, the date the NTK was issued, the date it arrived, and most important of all, what was put in the first appeal and precisely why it was rejected.

Getting information second hand makes the whole process very difficult. Basically we are flying blind until you or better still, the family member can give us precise and accurate information.

I’ll see what else I can find out? 

InaHaze

I have found out that it happened on 09/09/21 at approx 8.50am. Waiting to find out more? 

In the meantime, can I just check, can they refuse the appeal for not having personal name and address? 

I’ve been reading Edna Basher stuff and tied my head up in knots, so I’m going to read it again later and see if I can understand the position better, getting caught up in “hirer/company” stuff and confusing myself! 🙄

Fruitcake

InaHaze said:

I have found out that it happened on 09/09/21 at approx 8.50am. Waiting to find out more? 

In the meantime, can I just check, can they refuse the appeal for not having personal name and address? 

I’ve been reading Edna Basher stuff and tied my head up in knots, so I’m going to read it again later and see if I can understand the position better, getting caught up in “hirer/company” stuff and confusing myself! 🙄

I was wondering if they want a person's name and address and are refusing to accept a company name and address as the appellant. We have seen this before where a PPC said that according to Section 2 (2) of the CRA 2015, a contract is between a trader (the PPC) and a person, and a business cannot be a person.

However, Paragraph 35 of the CRA explanatory notes states that,

A “person” is not just a natural person but can also include companies, charities and arms of government (and the reference to a “person” can also include more than one person). So where these types of body are acting for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession, they are caught by the definition of trader.

If an appeal has been made by the company and a suitable business address for service was provided for the company, then the appeal should be accepted. You should complain to the PPC and their trade association and point this out (assuming an appeal was made in the company's name and not in an individual's.
This is where we need the clarification of what was put in the appeal, and why it wasn't accepted.

In your opening post you said, "She replied online simply stating that she had not parked & merely driven in and out."
That implies that the driver appealed and gave away the driver's identity.
If that was not the case then we need to know.
Was the appeal made in the driver's name, the keeper's (company's) name, or nobody's name?

If you are confused, then we have got no chance of understanding what is going on. This is the problem with dealing with stuff through an intermediary.

The date of the alleged event was given as 09/09/21

We need to know: -

The date the NTK was issued
The date the NTK was received
When the NTK was appealed and what precisely was said
When the appeal was rejected, and precisely what the PPC said

InaHaze

The appeal was done in the company name at the registered company address, because when she filled in online she thought she better put the company name so as to not confuse matters. Although she did speak in the first person, so if she has to give a name now, it will give away the driver.

it’s not that I’m confused with what happened on the day, just that my compromised brain can’t take what I need from Edna Basher stuff to adapt to this situation, it’s confusing me when talking about hired/lease vehicles etc. 

The appeal was I didn’t park I drove in and out, this is the response dtd 13th Oct:

Site: Broadwater Street West P&D
Issue date: 15/09/2021 (I ASSUME THIS IS THE NTK?)

Thank you for your correspondence.

We can only accept an appeal from a driver where a personal name and address has been supplied. Unfortunately, as you have not provided your name or address, we will not be able to accept your appeal.

If you wish for your appeal to be considered, please confirm your name and address by email to info@oneparking.co.uk by 17 October 2021.

With Regards,

One Parking Solution Ltd.

Fruitcake

That's good news. Thanks for the clarification.

As I said, the CRA Explanatory notes state that a company is considered to be a person as far as the Act is concerned, therefore an appeal from a company/trader is classed by law as an appeal from a person.

When we see solicitors sending threatogrammes etcetera, they routinely sign it Scamlegal Solicitors Inc, with no person's individual name mentioned. This is perfectly legitimate. I'm sure solicitors acting for OPS have done this themselves so it is hypocritical for them to argue the point.

I suggest "The Company" responds using the specific wording from the CRA, "signed" by the name that appears on the V5C. THis is the legal identity of the vehicle keeper, complaining that they made an appeal which has been rejected in breach of the BPA's CoP.

Also make the same complaint to the BPA.

The links below explain better what I am trying to put into words as they have the precise quotes from the CRA.

Court Letter Robinhood airport bus stop PCN help! - Page 6 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Coupon-mad

Yep, I would complain to the BPA that OPS tried to make a company registered keeper appeal 'conditional' upon being told who was driving.

This is not allowed snd there has always been a 'no wrong door' policy with the BPA telling operators they must not refuse to consider appeals just because they are not worded how they would like and certainly AOS members cannot refuse to provide a POPLA code to a keeper who has appealed in time.

InaHaze

Thank you fruitcake & coupon mad, I will read & digest and try to help formulate a reply tomorrow, dismissing their extra deadline too as it was received in time by the legal registered keeper! 

Wheels 🙏🏼

ParkingMad

Here is an article about this car park -

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-parking-solutions-sucker-punch-didnt-knock-me-out-vcttbnjzt

One Parking Solution’s sucker punch didn’t knock me out

Tracked down via his number plate, a boxing coach had the evidence to fight his corner.

Most mornings, boxing coach Neil Donohue would stop at his favourite coffee shop in Worthing, West Sussex, on his drive to work. Neil, 52, who owns a boxing and bodybuilding gym in nearby Lancing, would regularly leave his vehicle in a six-space private car park operated by One Parking Solution, paying the minimum 50p for a ticket while he popped into Starbucks for five minutes.

And a few days later, more often than not, Neil would get a £100 fine in the post.

One Parking Solution, a private firm, operates CCTV cameras to record the number plates of cars entering and leaving the car park, which included Neil in his Volkswagen Tiguan. In his case, the company would then go onto a government database, lawfully, to find his home address and issue him with a fine for, it claimed, failing to pay and display.

Neil assumed that the fines — 30 in total, which began arriving in 2015 — were a mistake and ignored them, but he did keep all his paper tickets and would staple the relevant one to the notice for each fine. On occasions when the ticket machine was not working, he would print out a picture of the broken dispenser, taken on his phone, storing all the evidence in a folder.

Then he was landed with a bill for £3,000: 30 “unpaid” tickets at £100 a time.

“One Parking’s behaviour is farcical,” said Neil, who has previously contacted Citizens Advice and Trading Standards in an attempt to report the firm.

“If this is happening to me, who else is One Parking doing it to? It could be people more vulnerable than myself.”

Neil’s case highlights again the tactics used by parking firms to chase drivers who claim to have done nothing wrong. Money has been inundated with complaints since we first started shining a light on the industry last year.

In April this year, One Parking Solution raised the stakes by instructing a solicitor and threatening to take Neil to court over four of the unpaid fines, imposed between January and June 2018. Each fine was originally for £100 but One Parking Solution had incurred extra costs, so the total amount being claimed was £463.72 for one fine, relating to January 13, and a combined £695.93 for the other three on April 14, June 1 and June 29.

Neil said this was what he had wanted all along: his day in court with One Parking Solution. “I think it’s a scam,” he said. “The firm knows that hardly anyone keeps their paper ticket — they just throw away the evidence [that they paid].”

Neil wrote to the court asking for a few extra days to prepare his defence, and the parking firm agreed that he had until May to argue his case. On April 23, however, a week earlier than the agreed deadline, One Parking Solution made a request to the court for judgement on its £695.93 claim — without Neil’s knowledge.

“I hit the roof,” said Neil, who only discovered what had happened when he received the judgment against him in the post. “Of course the court found against me — I’d failed to give it any evidence.”

One Parking Solution agreed to withdraw the case after Neil accused the firm of breaking their agreement. The company has now said it will not be pursuing him for the other fines.

Neil is one of nearly 7 million drivers who will have their personal details, including their home address, shared with private parking firms this year.

The DVLA hands out drivers’ details to private parking firms for a £2.50 fee. The companies do not have to provide a reason or prove they are in the right, but they must be registered with either the International Parking Community or the British Parking Association.

The parking companies have been able to buy these details since legal changes were made seven years ago, and the practice has become highly lucrative for them. Industry insiders said that about half of the people issued with the fines — typically for £20 to £100 — tend to pay them without question.

“Private parking companies shouldn’t see motorists as a meal ticket,” said Paul Tilley at solicitors Wannops. “Neil parked in accordance with the rules. He shouldn’t have been ticketed when he went about his business lawfully.”

It is hoped a new parking bill, which became law in March, will stop these companies from profiting from innocent drivers through the creation a code of conduct. If firms break the code, now being drawn up by ministers, they will be blocked from accessing driver details through the DVLA — in effect, putting them out of the business of issuing fines.

It will also prevent firms from issuing fines that imitate the look of official penalty tickets from local authorities or the police — when, in fact, they are merely invoices for alleged breach of contract.

Greg Knight, the Conservative MP who spearheaded the bill, said: “We want the wording of fines to make it clear the parking charge notice is an invoice from a company and not a fait accompli. The new parking code will also, I expect, stop invoices from copying the colour, wording and format of official penalty tickets.”

One Parking said: “The driver had numerous opportunities to correspond with us and provide evidence. He failed to do so.”