NTK received, quotes POFA, seems to comply with every aspect of POFA, clear signage

tastyfish

Coupon-mad said:

tastyfish said:

Ah, ok. What can I state in the appeal? There doesn't seem to be any grounds I can appeal on. Is it a case of just trying to string this out for 6 months?

No appeal. Ignore.

6 months is not relevant. Court claims can be made for 6 years.

Ok thanks. I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum to string things out for at least 6 months as magistrates courts don't consider anything older than 6 months due to that being a reasonable period of time where nobody is expected to remember any detail of the incident.

tastyfish

kryten3000 said:

This fails POFA Paragraph 9(e).  There is no specific invitation to the keeper to pay or provide driver information.  Instead they say the keeper should inform them of the driver's details which is an mis-statement of their authority.

Thank you 

tastyfish

ChirpyChicken said:

Follow the post above yours.

sorry, which one?!

tastyfish

LDast said:

OP, you can remove your tin foil hat. No one is employing a room full of hooded yoofs to scour the internet looking for your posts on a PCN. Trust me, they already know the location and the dates.

Also, the NtK is NOT fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA. Specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(h).

9(2)(e): state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; 

There are no parking charges. It's a free car park. The 'crime' was overstaying. Ah, I get this now, apologies. I thought it was referring to the original 'parking charge'.

9(2)(h): identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

The creditor is identified, it's Ocean Parking and they have detailed how payment can be made (on the reverse of the PCN)

tastyfish

kryten3000 said:

This fails POFA Paragraph 9(e).  There is no specific invitation to the keeper to pay or provide driver information.  Instead they say the keeper should inform them of the driver's details which is an mis-statement of their authority.

Thanks for this - however, looking at POFA 9(e) it refers to being invited to pay the unpaid parking charges. This is a free car park and the issue was an overstay so I don't think they can invite me to pay anything - I'd be happy to pay the free charge! 

KeithP

Once more I ask...

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

tastyfish

KeithP said:

Once more I ask...

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

Oh sorry, I thought you'd genuinely worked it out!

It was Gloucester Quays Retail Park in Gloucester.

tastyfish

kryten3000 said:

This fails POFA Paragraph 9(e).  There is no specific invitation to the keeper to pay or provide driver information.  Instead they say the keeper should inform them of the driver's details which is an mis-statement of their authority.

Ah, I get you now, sorry @kryten3000, I was having a moment. By 'parking charge' I thought it meant the original charge, but obvs it's the 'fine'.

So would that be reasonable grounds on which to appeal, a non-compliant PCN?

tastyfish

So I've decided to suck it up and pay the £60 parking charge, for several reasons below in case this helps anyone else debating whether it's worth pursuing or not:

I came here to see if there was any valid reason or loophole that I could use to appeal a parking ticket - there was none.

'Ocean never litigate' is not a strong enough reason to ignore given they have 6 years to change their mind. I'm not willing to take the risk over £60.

The driver, in my case, was in the wrong and so there was a very weak case in my favour. There was no issue with confusing payment methods, signage. There were no extenuating circumstances. From what I can see on this forum Ocean do take appeals seriously. Even their PCN is 99% watertight. I don't have the time or patience to argue with them over something where the driver was at fault.

Ultimately, it's my money, my time and my stress that I'd have to deal with. There is a wealth of information on this forum and, whilst the basic scenarios are relatively easy to follow, it can still take a fair amount of time to research, particularly where your defence is weak. Even at minimum wage £60 allows 5 hours worth of time. At my normal pay rate that goes down to an hour before it doesn't become worthwhile so even less of an incentive. And that's before having to deal with any appeal rejection and taking the case up with POPLA and possibly beyond. I value my time.

For every minute I don't need to deal with this I am now saving money.

That's not to say I won't challenge in future. I already challenged one a few months ago, successfully. But that one was easy and the research worth the effort if I ever find myself in that situation again.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to this thread, even if some were a bit off-hand (was there ever a need to be like that?).