Claim Form - NCP for parking in a disabled bay for 39 seconds

Coupon-mad

I think all good except remove 6 as it adds nothing.

1505grandad

"The Claimant intends to rely upon were not noticed by the driver, indicating the signs were not suitable for purpose."

Are there some word/words missing from the first part of the above?  -  perhaps "The signs the Claimant intends to rely upon......"

am1980

Thank you. Slightly adapted for it to make more sense. 

Do you believe point 4 and 7 are valid in this case? 

fisherjim

I don't get this, for a PPC employee to issue a PCN for not displaying a blue badge for a 39 second "parking" duration is ridiculous.

Sending a NTK after the event is strange in this instance, the employee should have photographic evidence to support this claim which should have shown all around the front windscreen of the vehicle and he would have been seen by the occupants surely?

What evidence have they supplied, in this instance word claims by known  "truth benders" are not enough surely they have irrefutable photographic evidence to support this spurious claim?

 

Le_Kirk

In #8 you say signs were not noticed by the driver; how can you know this if you were not the driver?  Maybe just state that "the signs could not have been noticed by the driver" or similar.

am1980

Thank you all. Submitted. 

Does anyone ever bring contempt charges against a fraudulent claim, how does that work with a parking company? In this case from their own evidence the car was there for 31 seconds; no evidence of signs that its a disabled bay, no evidence of lack of badge, no evidence of a contract, then surely it is a company attempting to bring a made up case to court for their financial gain? 

Coupon-mad

They are almost all just as tenuous!  No you wouldn't get anywhere accusing a PPC of 'fraud or contempt' and I strongly warn against trying.

Do NOT voice those words in court.

The way to get your own back is to help us change the law, and the opportunity is coming soon, with the upcoming DLUHC final Public Consultation.

am1980

Coupon-mad said:

They are almost all just as tenuous!  No you wouldn't get anywhere accusing a PPC of 'fraud or contempt' and I strongly warn against trying.

Do NOT voice those words in court.

The way to get your own back is to help us change the law, and the opportunity is coming soon, with the upcoming DLUHC final Public Consultation.

Of course I wouldn't, it was more out of trying to understand how they can keep doing this. Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

Good.  See you for the Consultation.

Explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79803066/#Comment_79803066

Don't disappear!