RingGo date error and PCN

Coupon-mad

Have you admitted to driving?

Is the Ntk POFA compliant? TPS aren't usually.

Fruitcake

No you should not pay the PCN because the driver paid for the parking session and did not breach the parking terms and conditions.

loulizbutt

Looks like I’ll be pursuing POPLA. Any advice or precedent I can use in my appeal? TPS didn’t respond to any of my previous requests for an explanation of the allegation, request for signage imagery, quality of ANPR images, copy of T&Cs…can I re-request these from TPS?

loulizbutt

BTW these are the images of the car park where the alleged offence happened…

Coupon-mad

loulizbutt said:

Looks like I’ll be pursuing POPLA. Any advice or precedent I can use in my appeal?

What are you seeking... is anything more needed than the POPLA section of the NEWBIES thread?

And also reading recent 2023 posts in POPLA DECISIONS?

loulizbutt

BW Legal has written back following my response to their LBC. They have given a 30 day hold but not answered my questions. I've double-checked the NEWBIE thread but it is unclear of the next stage. Do I just now wait to be taken to court or do I respond to the generic 30-day hold response and re-ask the questions?

Umkomaas

The next stage will likely be a court claim. I'd wait for that. 

Coupon-mad

But @loulizbutt - one favour please..

Urgent as it closes soon, are you aware of this Inquiry that I think will interest anyone who has had months (or years) of threatograms, now likely to lead to a meritless court claim:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/198166/new-inquiry-justice-committee-launches-new-inquiry-on-the-work-of-the-county-court-amid-capacity-and-resource-concerns/

Inquiry here. Closes in a fortnight!

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Please do answer it attaching your threatograms and telling the Committee that parking firms need controlling by a new 'parking pre-action protocol' and an ADR, to stop them stringing cases out with threats then cashing in with CCJs years later, due to not bothering to check for new addresses.

Parking Cases should be kept out of court. Needs an ADR to resolve them fairly.

Needs its own pre-action protocol.

And six years is too long.

SAY THAT. Pleeease! 

You don't have to answer all the questions.  Some are not relevant to a person submitting evidence of pre-action aggressive letters only.

Please give your views and please state these points too:

1.  The Private parking industry and their roboclaim 'legal firm' greedy limpets are the cause of the small claims track and CNBC delays.

2.  Parking needs it own new pre-action protocol to stop their barely-legal limpets from adding false fees and to stop them aiming for CCJs.

3.  Parking cases need an ADR to resolve cases out of court.  The DLUHC should be asked about this possibility.  If you'd had a really i dependent appeal open to you, the unfair PCN would have been cancelled.

Change is happening.

Please help...!