Baysentry Solutions Notice to Keeper - Ancoats Manchester Urban Exchange

Tabz123

Back facing picture from where vehicle was parked

Tabz123

Left facing picture from where vehicle was parked

Tabz123

Left/Back facing picture from where vehicle was parked. Image shows in the far background the only sign which is visible from where vehicle was parked.

Tabz123

Coupon-mad said:

1.  Yes, they are allowed to do that at the moment because the self-serving Code of Practice says they can (this will change in 2024 with the new statutory regime which all but bans postal PCNs in this situation).

2. No idea - which is why we need to see if there is a sign at those lines!  And what do the terms say on the signs elsewhere in the car park?

 Hopefully the images and maps give some context

Tabz123

Also, for one the tickets which was issued, has a contravention date of 09.02.23 reaches its 14 day limit tomorrow on 23.02.23.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to submit the appeal to the creditor at this point (albeit that it will likely be fruitless). However is there a recommended narrative that should be followed for this appeal ?

KeithP

Tabz123 said:

Therefore, it seems appropriate to submit the appeal to the creditor at this point (albeit that it will likely be fruitless). However is there a recommended narrative that should be followed for this appeal ?

Is the blue text template appeal in the opening post of the NEWBIES thread not suitable?

Coupon-mad

Tabz123 said:

Also, for one the tickets which was issued, has a contravention date of 09.02.23 reaches its 14 day limit tomorrow on 23.02.23.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to submit the appeal to the creditor at this point (albeit that it will likely be fruitless). However is there a recommended narrative that should be followed for this appeal ?

 
14 days is not relevant!   The NEWBIES thread tells you to ignore that.  No rush.

But when you appeal just remove the bit from the template appeal about P&D machines and replace it with the fact that the car had a disabled passenger, so they were unable to enter or exit the vehicle if parked in a normal bay.  There were no contractual or prohibitive signs visible at all in this multi-storey parking section and this particular area was marked as if it was still a disabled bay, as well as yellow lines which normally denote accessible bays.  At best it was ambiguous, and under the CRA 2015, ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  

Tabz123

Coupon-mad said:

Tabz123 said:

Also, for one the tickets which was issued, has a contravention date of 09.02.23 reaches its 14 day limit tomorrow on 23.02.23.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to submit the appeal to the creditor at this point (albeit that it will likely be fruitless). However is there a recommended narrative that should be followed for this appeal ?

 
14 days is not relevant!   The NEWBIES thread tells you to ignore that.  No rush.

But when you appeal just remove the bit from the template appeal about P&D machines and replace it with the fact that the car had a disabled passenger, so they were unable to enter or exit the vehicle if parked in a normal bay.  There were no contractual or prohibitive signs visible at all in this multi-storey parking section and this particular area was marked as if it was still a disabled bay, as well as yellow lines which normally denote accessible bays.  At best it was ambiguous, and under the CRA 2015, ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  

Does this work?

Re NTK number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your NTK is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

Your allegation is that the vehicle was not parked in a designated zone. However, the vehicle was parked in this larger space as a consequence of having a disabled passenger and therefore they would have been unable to disembark from the vehicle had it been parked in any other marked bay. Please see blue badge image attached.

There were no contractual or prohibitive signs visible at all in this multi-storey parking section and this particular area was marked as if it was still a bay given the white lines, as well as yellow lines which normally denote accessible bays. These bay markings are ambiguous, and under the CRA 2015, ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.

Tabz123

Coupon-mad said:

Tabz123 said:

Also, for one the tickets which was issued, has a contravention date of 09.02.23 reaches its 14 day limit tomorrow on 23.02.23.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to submit the appeal to the creditor at this point (albeit that it will likely be fruitless). However is there a recommended narrative that should be followed for this appeal ?

 
14 days is not relevant!   The NEWBIES thread tells you to ignore that.  No rush.

But when you appeal just remove the bit from the template appeal about P&D machines and replace it with the fact that the car had a disabled passenger, so they were unable to enter or exit the vehicle if parked in a normal bay.  There were no contractual or prohibitive signs visible at all in this multi-storey parking section and this particular area was marked as if it was still a disabled bay, as well as yellow lines which normally denote accessible bays.  At best it was ambiguous, and under the CRA 2015, ambiguity must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  

I must point out that there is no disabled bay marking on the floor as you will have seen from the images, just the blank lines. 

What are the chances they will accept the appeal ? 

Coupon-mad

The markings looked like a bay as well, white lines with extra extended marks framing it, for a wider bay?