Stopped in private car park on "yellow lines/hatched area" for 68 seconds

Gr1pr

So it appears that they are invoking clause 13.4 from the BPA CoP version 9 section 13

Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration

period in spaces designated for specific users e.g. Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is

prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps

gethelpfast

They must have the start and end points to prove stopping?

Also, there is no emergency exit - it is just a hatched area. Any entry / exit ramp there may be has been parked across (on left of image). 

What would you suggest as the best course of action?

Gr1pr

Assuming that you don't want to pay, your other choices are in the newbies sticky thread at the top of the forum 

Plan A, followed by plan B ( complaint to the Landowner, followed by the blue text template appeal to UKPC, adding that the driver never parked, only stopped briefly)

Always remember that stopping is not parking, despite their biased interpretation 

gethelpfast

Do you have a view on likelihood of being successful?

LDast

...or just wait for Plan D.

Gr1pr

gethelpfast said:

Do you have a view on likelihood of being successful?

Depends on your definition of successful, or ours 

As mentioned above by Ldast, you may be successful in Court, plan D, because STOPPING is not parking and 66 seconds is predatory , and petty, and de minimis , IMHO 

Successful with plan A. ? Hopefully yes !

Successful in appealing to UKPC , plan B . ?  Definitely not !

Successful at Popla , Plan C . ? Maybe yes, maybe not !

LDast

But Plan D is not "successful in court". Plan D is what you will get to once Plans B and C don't work. Plan D is the operator filing a claim with the ultimate dispute resolution service, the county court small claims track.

This claimant and their equally mendacious solicitors will never go as far as an actual trial because they will have failed in their scam to get the victim to pay up by scare tactics aimed at the gullible and others, ignorant in the ways of civil litigation.

There modus operandi is to try and scare the victim into paying by sending useless debt collector letters and threatening litigation. Once they reach the stage of having to pay the trial fee, if their victim has not yet capitulated, they cut their losses and move on to lower-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. Hence why we can evidence almost 400 discontinuances from just this one, gutter-dwelling roboclaim solicitor.

Coupon-mad

Come on: if the Assessor has any sense this will be EASILY won at POPLA!

Appeal it.

There's no evidence of being parked on hatched lines and you were merely waiting for another parked car to move. You were involved in the course of driving. Not parked and not on the hatched lines to the side.

gethelpfast

Thanks all for your help.

I have called a couple of shops in the nearby area to see if they can help get it cancelled but have had no luck. As such, I will raise an appeal with UKPC directly using the "TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING:" from the Newbies page.

Coupon-mad

gethelpfast said:

Thanks all for your help.

I have called a couple of shops in the nearby area to see if they can help get it cancelled but have had no luck. As such, I will raise an appeal with UKPC directly using the "TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING:" from the Newbies page.

Got to POPLA stage yet?