Private Parking charge challenge

KeithP

Sledger said:

Umkomaas said:

An elderly occupant of the vehicle is disabled but does not have a Blue Batch. 

You might want to have another go at that! 😊

1). Any suggestions  on the above  would be welcomed

2). And 1505 grandad  just omit "and potentially liable to finding themselves in court." or the entire paragraph ?

@Sledger, read again what you wrote earlier.

Here's some more hints...
1) what's a blue batch?
2) check the name of the parking company for consistency.

Le_Kirk

and this could be considered discrimination and a breach of the Equality Act 2010. UKCPS and the Landover Landowner could therefore jointly be in breach .....

Try the above

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

and this could be considered discrimination and a breach of the Equality Act 2010. UKCPS UKPC and the Landover Landowner could therefore jointly be in breach .....

Try the above

... with additional correction added.

Coupon-mad

IMHO that approach only makes sense if you also talk about the mobility/stamina issues and needs of the driver/passenger, and attach proof of a disabling medical condition.

Otherwise, it comes across as "anyone can park in an accessible bay" and they won't offer the £15 to settle this one.

Sledger

I thought the day 25/26 was to tie them up in the appeals process. If disabling proof is not offered at this stage, they should reply accordingly requesting it and then its offered..  Are the passengers' full details required or just their name and submit proof of disability ie Photograph or other document 

 ( Not sure how they would respond to a photograph of South African disabled Olympic Pistorius if he were my passenger who is clearly disabled but can clearly run from a disabled bay)   

Where is this £15 offer mentioned as surely that should be indicated on the UKPC notice boards. If this £15 is offered, do you suggest its paid as that's an admission of guilt defeating the tie up delay process and goes against the Blue Badge discrimination .

My day 14 to pay £60 is tomorrow so need more assurance that this will succeed

Coupon-mad

No if doesn't have to be on signs.  It is something UKPC do under certain circs; they can reduce the charge if they want.  They could accept 50p if they wanted.

UKPC offer to settle at £15 when either a slipped permit is shown retrospectively, or a forgotten Blue Badge.

If you didn't have a disabled person in the car, don't play games with an appeal that suggests you did.

Sledger

I am a little bit lost here as a newbie. 

I thought the object of the appeal at day 25/26 was in the hope that the PPC forgets to send a NTK by day 56 and you win on that basis which has nothing to do with having a disabled passenger or anything else stated in the appeal or do we call it challenge.?

"Many PPCs in the BPA omit any NTK when replying to an appeal and the very fact a PPC forgets to send you a NTK by day 56"

Moreover, bit confused on this 56-day criteria as if the keeper sends a challenge appeal to the PPC on Day 25  the PPC then has the keepers details. But must the PPC still issue a NTK similar to what the PPC  would have pursued and issued after day 28 getting the keepers details from DVLA? If the PPC responds to the keepers challenge sent on day 25  is that not considered acknowledgement that the keeper already has the windscreen PCN and formal NTK is no longer required? 

So if You submit your disabled badge in the Challange appeal  that you forgot to display, or it slipped  are you implying to pay the £15 if its offered and if so at what stage do you pay ?   If  you pay this £15 whatever, it sort of defeats waiting for day 25/26 rather than doing it before day 14 where you have a backup of paying £60 and still does not address having to display the Blue Badge discrimination issue. 

Time is ticking away as my 14 day deadline is tomorrow and it appears I am better off appealing before day14 and if they offer me  £15 whatever its similar to day 25 but it gives the PPC to my understanding  56-14 days instead of 56-25 days

Coupon-mad

Time is not ticking away.

One of the very first Q&A in the NEWBIES thread practically screams not to even look at the 14 day 'discount' bribe!

bit confused on this 56-day criteria as if the keeper sends a challenge appeal to the PPC on Day 25  the PPC then has the keepers details.

Yes... but the POFA says in order to hold a keeper liable, that data must ONLY be obtained from the Secretary of State (DVLA) and then a compliant NTK must be sent, which must arrive by day 56.

The reason to use our tactic is, by waiting till day 26 you get over half way there, by the tIme the PPC send you a rejection letter, maybe around day 30.

Hopefully they forget to send a NTK.

You then wait 30 days before putting in your POPLA appeal, and you point out that no NTK was served...

If all those stars align (and there's no downside by trying) with a BPA AOS firm, you win!

Sledger

Day 25 tomorrow so need to fill in my UKPC challenge. I came across this its 2014 attached so maybe out of date, but if still valid, any milage to adding of these  4 to tie them up further?  i note reading up on this that most PPC just reject any challenge outright but not sure if they are obliged to respond and seek confirmation or substantiation  on any issues raised in the challenge. If they have to, that may eat into the day 56 and to use CM  comment "Hopefully they forget to send a NTK."
 

1. Your parking charge amount claim. 

 Please explain on which of the following grounds your claim is based: 

 (i)    Damages for trespass 

(ii)   Damages for breach of contract 

(iii)  A contractual sum

2. Your loss.

 If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages; please give me a full breakdown of the actual losses which evidences that this parking charge is a true reflection of the damages caused solely by the alleged parking contravention.   

Is item 1 and 2  above now obsolete due to this " or appellants to try to argue that the parking charge as 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.  That argument died in 2015 in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis and should never be tried in any case".

3. Your status – the creditor. 

 Your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper simply mentions UKPC.  Please tell me who is the actual creditor making this £100/60 parking charge demand. I need to know exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity. 

4. Contractual Authority  (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7) Is this current and still Valid

Please provide me with a copy of the contact between your company and the Landowner/Landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of your PCN

 So i will use my last corrected challenge above and add any of the 4 above if deemed valid so comments welcomed.

I will also amend  this to read but not post the photographs here

An elderly occupant of the vehicle is disabled, does not drive or have a Blue Badge. Please see attached photographs of the swollen leg due to a motor bike accident severing all ligaments from the knee down. The leg frequently becomes infected due to the insertion of a metal Rod causing extreme pain and swelling impairing mobility and will forward the medical report which is in process

Coupon-mad

That's far too old. UKPC are the creditor.

Just use the template appeal in the NEWBIES thread and add your facts about the disabled occupant of the car. But don't say that they 'don't have a blue badge'.

Has Plan A failed, then?