Parking Charge Notice ***** SUCCESS *****

Trainerman

You know, the real experts might disagree ...... and if they do follow them not me ..... but if I was sending that standard first denial, I would add words to the effect that I was BY THE CAR the whole time and can categorically state that the details are false, no windscreen ticket was applied and you will swear to that in Court.

Might not help, but if it is strong enough, and they know they are trying it on, who knows ?

Fruitcake

Trainerman said:

You know, the real experts might disagree ...... and if they do follow them not me ..... but if I was sending that standard first denial, I would add words to the effect that I was BY THE CAR the whole time and can categorically state that the details are false, no windscreen ticket was applied and you will swear to that in Court.

Might not help, but if it is strong enough, and they know they are trying it on, who knows ?

I wouldn't, as that gives away the driver's identity, and unless the car was right by the ATM it wouldn't be true.

However, the keeper can state that the driver told them there was no NTD when they turned round after spending less than say 2 minutes at the hole-in-the-wall.

I believe the NTD "should" give a period of time parked in order for it to be PoFA compliant. Time stamps on the photos "should" also give an indication of the observation period and lack of grace period.

Then there is the mitigation of loss. Why didn't the parking operative tell the driver not to park, or to move to a different spot. They must have seen the driver.

Trainerman

Fruitcake said:

Trainerman said:

You know, the real experts might disagree ...... and if they do follow them not me ..... but if I was sending that standard first denial, I would add words to the effect that I was BY THE CAR the whole time and can categorically state that the details are false, no windscreen ticket was applied and you will swear to that in Court.

Might not help, but if it is strong enough, and they know they are trying it on, who knows ?

I wouldn't, as that gives away the driver's identity, and unless the car was right by the ATM it wouldn't be true.

However, the keeper can state that the driver told them there was no NTD when they turned round after spending less than 2 minutes at the hole-in-the-wall.

I believe the NTD "should" give a period of time parked in order for it to be PoFA compliant. Time stamps on the photos "should" also give an indication of the observation period and lack of grace period.

Thanks Fruitcake, that is a much better way to do it !

Umkomaas

and I have definitely not had a ticket left on my car.

Google 'ghost ticketing'. 

Go to the PW website as if you were going to pay the charge (obviously don't pay!), you should then be able to view the photos they have of your vehicle and where it was parked. 

carolec

Fruitcake said:

Trainerman said:

You know, the real experts might disagree ...... and if they do follow them not me ..... but if I was sending that standard first denial, I would add words to the effect that I was BY THE CAR the whole time and can categorically state that the details are false, no windscreen ticket was applied and you will swear to that in Court.

Might not help, but if it is strong enough, and they know they are trying it on, who knows ?

I wouldn't, as that gives away the driver's identity, and unless the car was right by the ATM it wouldn't be true.

However, the keeper can state that the driver told them there was no NTD when they turned round after spending less than say 2 minutes at the hole-in-the-wall.

I believe the NTD "should" give a period of time parked in order for it to be PoFA compliant. Time stamps on the photos "should" also give an indication of the observation period and lack of grace period.

Then there is the mitigation of loss. Why didn't the parking operative tell the driver not to park, or to move to a different spot. They must have seen the driver.

I’ve gone to the PW website as if I was going to pay and viewed the photos. There are three, the first is a rear view of my vehicle time stamped 13:57:55, the second is a rear/side view at 13:57:59 and the third is of the signage at 13:58:22.

Fruitcake

Good, but you still need to see what the NTD says.

Whilst you are waiting for the response to your SAR, have a look at the PoFA and see what it says a NTD must include as its mandatory wording and information.

Also have a look at the BPA CoP to see what it says about grace periods etcetera.

Do any of the photos show the background, such as the driver at an ATM, and/or signage near the vehicle clearly showing where it was in relation to the car, and/or surface markings?

Coupon-mad

carolec said:

Fruitcake said:

Trainerman said:

You know, the real experts might disagree ...... and if they do follow them not me ..... but if I was sending that standard first denial, I would add words to the effect that I was BY THE CAR the whole time and can categorically state that the details are false, no windscreen ticket was applied and you will swear to that in Court.

Might not help, but if it is strong enough, and they know they are trying it on, who knows ?

I wouldn't, as that gives away the driver's identity, and unless the car was right by the ATM it wouldn't be true.

However, the keeper can state that the driver told them there was no NTD when they turned round after spending less than say 2 minutes at the hole-in-the-wall.

I believe the NTD "should" give a period of time parked in order for it to be PoFA compliant. Time stamps on the photos "should" also give an indication of the observation period and lack of grace period.

Then there is the mitigation of loss. Why didn't the parking operative tell the driver not to park, or to move to a different spot. They must have seen the driver.

I’ve gone to the PW website as if I was going to pay and viewed the photos. There are three, the first is a rear view of my vehicle time stamped 13:57:55, the second is a rear/side view at 13:57:59 and the third is a of the signage at 13:58:22.

No pic of a NTD on the windscreen?

And only 2 pics of the car over FOUR SECONDS?!

Hilarious!  Scam ticketing at its best.  There was no NTD, clearly.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

carolec said:

Fruitcake said:

Trainerman said:

You know, the real experts might disagree ...... and if they do follow them not me ..... but if I was sending that standard first denial, I would add words to the effect that I was BY THE CAR the whole time and can categorically state that the details are false, no windscreen ticket was applied and you will swear to that in Court.

Might not help, but if it is strong enough, and they know they are trying it on, who knows ?

I wouldn't, as that gives away the driver's identity, and unless the car was right by the ATM it wouldn't be true.

However, the keeper can state that the driver told them there was no NTD when they turned round after spending less than say 2 minutes at the hole-in-the-wall.

I believe the NTD "should" give a period of time parked in order for it to be PoFA compliant. Time stamps on the photos "should" also give an indication of the observation period and lack of grace period.

Then there is the mitigation of loss. Why didn't the parking operative tell the driver not to park, or to move to a different spot. They must have seen the driver.

I’ve gone to the PW website as if I was going to pay and viewed the photos. There are three, the first is a rear view of my vehicle time stamped 13:57:55, the second is a rear/side view at 13:57:59 and the third is a of the signage at 13:58:22.

No pic of a NTD on the windscreen?

And only 2 pics of the car over FOUR SECONDS?!

Hilarious!  Scam ticketing at its best.  There was no NTD, clearly.

The OP still needs to get the results of their SAR in case there are photos of a NTD on the screen that aren't on the website.

Coupon-mad

Ideally yes, but the NTK might only give 21 days from 8th March to appeal.  Possibly 28.

Keeper needs to appeal in time (regardless of SAR reply) saying there was no windscreen PCN and not add their own words, like 'when I parked' !

carolec

Fruitcake said:

Good, but you still need to see what the NTD says.

Whilst you are waiting for the response to your SAR, have a look at the PoFA and see what it says a NTD must include as its mandatory wording and information.

Also have a look at the BPA CoP to see what it says about grace periods etcetera.

Do any of the photos show the background, such as the driver at an ATM, and/or signage near the vehicle clearly showing where it was in relation to the car, and/or surface markings?

I haven’t sent the SAR or the Appeal yet, I’ve not had time but I’ll definitely get onto it tomorrow. I will also look at the POFA and the BPA CoP as you suggest.

I’ve had another look at the photos, neither the driver nor the ATM is showing in them and the pic of the sign is a close up of it with not much background detail. It looks like it’s on a large concrete post (see below). The pics of the vehicle clearly show the white hatched lines it was parked on. The ATM is opposite where the vehicle was parked, just across a small access road. There is no way that someone affixing a PCN on the windscreen would not have been seen. Also, not sure if it’s relevant but my young grandson was in the vehicle and I was constantly turning around to check on him in the couple of minutes I was at the ATM so I would definitely have seen a PCN being issued.