PCN CPS Midlands

Dmptogo

Thank you.

GrumpyDil

You do need to take a breath and read the information. I've managed to get rid of two invoices in the last 6 months although both by shop cancellation.

In your case if you take the advice offered here and read the newbies thread you will be very likely to not pay this.  The regulars can sometimes come across as brusque but they know what they are doing and to be honest have so many requests for support that they need posters to take the first steps themselves based on the information in the newbies thread. 

KeithP

Dmptogo said:

KeithP said:

Were you visiting Dale Textiles?
If not, why did you think it OK to park on their forecourt?

If you were visiting Dale Textiles, get them to intervene.

It’s not Dale textiles any more ?

So you weren't visiting Dale Textiles. Good - that's one question out of the way.
The second question was - why did you think it OK to park on their forecourt?

Debszzzz2

As far as I am aware, the premises used to belong to a company called Dale Textiles. However, that business has since gone out of business. I think the premises are unoccupied.

Aside from the OPs brusque and slightly unappreciative style of writing, I think we are getting away from the core issue here which is, should this PCN be appealed and on what grounds? So far, there does not appear to be any evidence of signs that comply wi the relevant CoP and can the keeper be liable for the PCN?

Grizebeck

No don't bother it's only cps Midlands 

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

Dmptogo said:

KeithP said:

Were you visiting Dale Textiles?
If not, why did you think it OK to park on their forecourt?

If you were visiting Dale Textiles, get them to intervene.

It’s not Dale textiles any more ?

So you weren't visiting Dale Textiles. Good - that's one question out of the way.
The second question was - why did you think it OK to park on their forecourt?

Perhaps your question would be better phrased as, "Why did the driver think it okay to park on their forecourt?" since, according to the NTD, only the driver can be held liable.

If the keeper were to be given a NTK, then according to the PoFA, it must repeat the info on the NTD, therefore the NTK would have to state that the driver is liable, but cannot (should not) state that the keeper can be held liable.

In addition, the sign posted by the OP states that the driver can be held liable. There is nothing on the sign, and therefore nothing in the parking contract that is capable of holding the keeper liable.

If the keeper receives a NTK, they will have two options.

Ignore as advised by Grizebeck,

or,

Appeal as keeper (whether or not they decide to use the template in blue text from the NEWBIES) stating that since the keeper cannot be held liable, as determined by the contract (signs) at the site, CPS (Midlands) should cancel straight ways to save themselves time and money.

@Dmptogo, if you do decide to appeal as keeper, do not reveal the driver's identity.

Dmptogo

KeithP said:

Were you visiting Dale Textiles?
If not, why did you think it OK to park on their forecourt?

If you were visiting Dale Textiles, get them to intervene.

Its no longer Dale Textiles.Its Nottingham cars.

Dmptogo

Admin please close this thread down.Have sorted it now. Thank you for your help.

Le_Kirk

Dmptogo said:

Admin please close this thread down.Have sorted it now. Thank you for your help.

Excellent, how did you sort it?  It will help others and the regulars to know what works.   The thread will just drop to the bottom of the pile if no-one posts on it - oh, I just did!