Grounds for Appeal?

Mouse007

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

But my point is that this is bordering on a legal absurdity.

Agreed

The parking company do not seem to have any grounds upon which to sue

If the terms and conditions stated only those in pink tutus may park here - and by parking here you agree to this and further agree to pay £100 if your tutu is any other colour ... They have made the grounds up with their signs, it's a trap.

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

What is the basis of their claim?

Breach of contract - you agreed by parking here dressed in anything other than a pink tutu to pay £100 and you have failed to pay the £100

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

I just can't see that getting off the ground.  

Oh, it's getting off the ground all right, 24,500 times a day

Coupon-mad

PPCs usually have shaky ground upon which to sue. It doesn't stop them, as it's all a numbers game.

steevie_b

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Mouse007 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

If the car left the car park within that time I can't see where the case is for breach of contract.

It depends what the sign says, was it a clear term and condition to enter the vehicle registration number? Did the machine actually allow you to do so? Did the ticket machine display contradictory instructions?

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

You can prove that you have not caused any party loss.

I don't think losses are relevant, they are not seeking damages they are seeking a contractual amount (the parking scam method of entrapment).

But my point is that this is bordering on a legal absurdity.  The parking company do not seem to have any grounds upon which to sue @steevie_b , so wouldn't be able to start proceedings.  What is the basis of their claim?  That he paid for parking in a manner which did not comply with their terms and conditions?  I just can't see that getting off the ground.  

Thinking about it, the NTK states that the reason for the issuing of the charge is "ANPR failure to pay for parking".  This is incorrect, the parking was paid for.  If the reason for the charge was not complying with the T&Cs, then that would be a separate matter and any subsequent issue of a PCN would be outside of the 14 days required...

Mouse007

steevie_b said:

Thinking about it, the NTK states that the reason for the issuing of the charge is "ANPR failure to pay for parking".  This is incorrect....

It is also meaningless

The scammers behind these PPC are not the brightest of rats, that's why they lose here. They get away with it because most people do not realise they are being scammed or can not be bothered to fight back and just pay up. These rats have made millions from this racket.

Coupon-mad

steevie_b said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Mouse007 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

If the car left the car park within that time I can't see where the case is for breach of contract.

It depends what the sign says, was it a clear term and condition to enter the vehicle registration number? Did the machine actually allow you to do so? Did the ticket machine display contradictory instructions?

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

You can prove that you have not caused any party loss.

I don't think losses are relevant, they are not seeking damages they are seeking a contractual amount (the parking scam method of entrapment).

But my point is that this is bordering on a legal absurdity.  The parking company do not seem to have any grounds upon which to sue @steevie_b , so wouldn't be able to start proceedings.  What is the basis of their claim?  That he paid for parking in a manner which did not comply with their terms and conditions?  I just can't see that getting off the ground.  

Thinking about it, the NTK states that the reason for the issuing of the charge is "ANPR failure to pay for parking".  This is incorrect, the parking was paid for.  If the reason for the charge was not complying with the T&Cs, then that would be a separate matter and any subsequent issue of a PCN would be outside of the 14 days required...

OK so add that to the draft appeal.

Ditzy_Mitzy

steevie_b said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Mouse007 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

If the car left the car park within that time I can't see where the case is for breach of contract.

It depends what the sign says, was it a clear term and condition to enter the vehicle registration number? Did the machine actually allow you to do so? Did the ticket machine display contradictory instructions?

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

You can prove that you have not caused any party loss.

I don't think losses are relevant, they are not seeking damages they are seeking a contractual amount (the parking scam method of entrapment).

But my point is that this is bordering on a legal absurdity.  The parking company do not seem to have any grounds upon which to sue @steevie_b , so wouldn't be able to start proceedings.  What is the basis of their claim?  That he paid for parking in a manner which did not comply with their terms and conditions?  I just can't see that getting off the ground.  

Thinking about it, the NTK states that the reason for the issuing of the charge is "ANPR failure to pay for parking".  This is incorrect, the parking was paid for.  If the reason for the charge was not complying with the T&Cs, then that would be a separate matter and any subsequent issue of a PCN would be outside of the 14 days required...

Hm.  Sounds as if they are trying to make the claim that 'car number A123ABC' did not pay for parking on the basis that their system has not recorded a payment in relation to that registration.  The point, however, is that you, we assume, were driving A123ABC at the time of the alleged contravention and you have evidence that parking was paid for.  This is, in effect, an administrative issue on the part of the parking company which can be solved by the simple action of them accepting the payment made by Steevie was for the parking of car A123ABC.  

Let's look at the evidence: 

Car A123ABC was parked in the car park at the relevant point - not in dispute.  The parking company have agreed it was there by the action of issuing the parking ticket.  

Steevie was driving car A123ABC on the day in question - not in dispute.  

Steevie made a payment to the parking company sufficient to cover the relevant period -  not in dispute.  He has evidence of making payment via plastic card.  

Steevie's payment to the parking company related to the parking of A123ABC - disputed.  The parking company's claim appears to hinge on this aspect.  Their claim is that Steevie parking the car and Steevie making payment are independent events.  Presumably, therefore, they suggest that Steevie could have parked A123ABC in the car park and then bought a ticket for another car.  

On the balance of probabilities, the parking company's side of things seems extremely weak and contrived.  They have taken Steevie's money for a ticket, but will make the suggestion that the ticket bought is not applicable to car A123ABC as the relevant number was not keyed in to the machine.  Perhaps, but Steevie had no other car to put the ticket in.  The ticket purchased, therefore, cannot have been used.  

Have the parking company provided a refund for the pay and display ticket?  They will be on even stonier ground if not, I think, because by doing that they are accepting payment for an invalid ticket.    

Mouse007

Irrelevant, he was not wearing a pink tutu (see my post above)

Coupon-mad

Steevie was driving car A123ABC on the day in question - not in dispute.  

Yes it is...as a basic rule of thumb, the driver should never be admitted in an appeal.

Whilst what you say is potentially useful in court, at early 'appeal farce' stage this is over-complicating the simple issues.

We already have a template appeal that doesn't say who was driving. 

The OP simply needs to take the template appeal from the NEWBIES thread and add the two tweaks of info that I've already posted.

If will be rejected because in our experience, all IPC first appeals routinely are rejected to force people between the 'rock and the hard place' of IAS or court.

However, IAS is worth the laugh even if just to cost the PPC money and because a fifth drop out uncontested, and if not then the daft 'decision' in favour of the PPC isn't binding on the motorist anyway.