IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Windscreen ticket - PLEASE HELP!

1235

Replies

  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Good. Calm down and email POPLA so you have a whole week to sort this out.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Thank you Coupon-Mad,


    I will email to POPLA now and I will try to attach some of the evidence pack here (I'll have to look into this as I haven't done it before) I'm still reading the links provided by Umkomaas as I was away for couple of days...
  • I came back with some of the evidence pack from PPC. I know everybody is in the holiday spirit now, but maybe you can help me with some advice on this. Please let me know if you need more information. Thank you very much.


    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2mh99b9&s=9


    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30c6ccl&s=9


    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2n7nt54&s=9
  • edited 2 January 2016 at 2:38AM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 2 January 2016 at 2:38AM
    What is this 'evidence E' which 'proves' the keeper was the driver as well?? Does it? Did you admit that in the first appeal by mistake? Or are they pointing to a photo of a driver who could be any male or female (they do not have facial recognition).

    Is 'evidence B' actually the contract with the landowner (or just signed by a site or managing agent)? Does it confirm the contract is still valid in 2015, does it confirm the amount of the charge & the restrictions and the site boundary?

    Loving this bit:

    They appear to have said in response to your point 'not a GPEOL' the following:

    'The PCN is for damages & terrorem ...therefore falls outside the UTCCRs and also falls outside GPEOL'. :rotfl:

    Classic! The posters here can discuss over the weekend, how the PPC has shot themselves in the foot there!

    CLUE: The PE v Beavis case was won by PE, partly (very simplistically) because PE showed their charge was justified in other commercial ways and was NOT for damages!

    And a charge for 'damages' which isn't argued to be based upon any GPEOL, falls squarely under the UTCCRs (now encompassed in the Consumer Rights Act for contracts after 1.10.15).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • alebazialebazi Forumite
    30 Posts
    Hi Coupon-mad,
    Here is the " evidence E", where it was ticked by mistake that option; I think while scrolling down it remained ticked.... cannot explain as I know we don't have to admit that:


    http://tinypic.com/m/j9x5r4/4


    and these are the terms & conditions and "evidence B":


    http://tinypic.com/m/j9x5w5/4


    http://tinypic.com/m/j9x5x1/4
  • edited 4 January 2016 at 2:24AM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 4 January 2016 at 2:24AM
    Who added the black pen overwriting the details which were actually filled out & signed by someone with a blue pen? I would be pointing out that this is an altered contract (black pen covers up the blue) - assuming this wasn't you overwriting it to assist the scan to be read?

    Also the contract is dated 24.4.14 yet says 'for at least 12 months'. But there is no evidence this contract was renewed or was even valid after that initial period. It cannot possibly nor fairly be assumed that the contract continues now, because private parking firms are notorious for leaving signs up when they should be removed - and because the burden falls upon the operator to prove landowner authority on the date of the event, not merely show they had historical authority from an unidentified signatory, between April 2014 and April 2015 based on a hand-altered sheet.

    This old contract also does not show who Sajjad Aziz is nor whether he is authorised by the actual landowner. The client's name is covered up and could be a single tenant, who could by now, no longer be a trading company or could be the previous owners/agents, or could in any case, merely be the managing agent, not the landowner. Previous POPLA decisions in 2014/15 have confirmed that redacted, old contracts and those signed only by another agent (not the landowner and with no evidence of authority flowing from the landowner) are not acceptable as evidence, for the purposes of POPLA.

    Did they include a map of 'schedule 1' showing the area to be enforced?

    In your photos there's a picture of a car on what looks like a public road (with a road name on the wall). Is that this situation re this PCN?

    I'd be pointing out this looks to be a road/public highway, not shown to be within the estate. And in any case, the sign on the right on the wall is absolutely unreadable being at least 3 times the height of a man and placed above a road name which does not match the area named in 'schedule 1'. Also there appears to be no sign at all on the side of the road where the car was parked and as every driver should know, when parking in a place that appears to be 'on street' (at least going by the Highway Code definition) only signs on the same side of the road relate to the restrictions on that side. Although this is allegedly private land, there is no way a driver parking on the left there would have known, nor been able to read anything at all about permits, nor agree to the £100 charge because none of it is legible. Even if a driver got out of the car and stood right under those signs high up on the building wall and climbed a ladder with a magnifying glass to read it, they would still not conclude it necessarily relates to the left hand side, which has no yellow lines nor signs and therefore obviously differs from the right hand side, which does.

    And then we come to their response to your point 'not a GPEOL' where you MUST point out to POPLA that PTL are saying the following:

    'The PCN is for damages & terrorem ...therefore falls outside the UTCCRs'.


    Point out this is utterly untrue. All contracts traders have or allege to have with consumers - before the Consumer Rights Act was enacted on 1st October - fall under the scope of the UTCCRs. And under those regulations, a charge which is disproportionate has the potential to be considered an unlawful penalty and cannot simply be waved through just because it is a 'parking charge' (which is the only similarity with the Beavis case).

    Point out that the operator has quoted the Beavis case but abjectly failed to show any similarity with THIS parking charge, whatsoever. Indeed by stating 'the PCN is 'for damages & terrorem' (the latter meaning "into/about fear") they have confirmed in fact that their charge is an unlawful penalty and represents the polar opposite of the 'commercial justification' detailed in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis.

    After the Beavis decision, the Supreme Court officially tweeted that the PE charge in that specific case was: “neither extravagant nor unconscionable...taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices.” Well that is not the case here, where the Notice is on the wrong side of the road and illegible due to the extreme height, is not even shown to be in the same 'area' as defined by the (altered in black pen after signing) contract and indeed the operator has admitted the charge represents a 'threat' designed to cause fear/to punish = a classic unenforceable penalty under the UTCCRs and certainly unconscionable.

    And in Beavis, it was further stated at 32: ''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach...''

    And by PTL sayting their charge is for 'damages' it falls foul of the penalty rule because they have made no attempt to show a GPEOL nor commercial justification either. In Beavis it was stated that the penalty rule was certainly engaged in these cases - it was merely the case that ParkingEye argued sufficiently that the unusual circumstances and the offer of two hours free parking in THAT case in THAT car park, offset the usual rule that a charge for damages must equate to the loss or a GPEOL.

    The 'penalty rule' was very deliberately NOT revoked by the Supreme Court - this was discussed at the hearing - and it undoubtedly continues to apply to these charges. The penalty rule is potentially engaged in all such cases and if an operator cannot draw clear similarities with Beavis, they fail to justify their own charge unless in the alternative, they show it is based upon a GPEOL, which the operator has not.

    Finally, by PTL saying their charge is for damages they have confirmed they cannot pursue it because they are by their own admission, not the landowner. In Beavis it was stated at 97: ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession...''
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • I wasn't overwriting anything.. I sent it just the way it was sent to me.


    They sent me 6 pictures of different roads but all in the same area:
    http://tinypic.com/m/j9xcbb/4


    http://tinypic.com/m/j9xcec/4


    Yes, the picture with the car is the situation regarding this PCN, with the wall signage. It really looks like any public road...
  • What about ticking the wrong option about who was driving the car? What should I say about it?
  • edited 4 January 2016 at 2:21AM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 4 January 2016 at 2:21AM
    alebazi wrote: »
    What about ticking the wrong option about who was driving the car? What should I say about it?
    You can say you appealed as the keeper and have no idea why PTL have produced evidence which makes it look as though another choice was clicked on their appeals webpage. Tell POPLA the truth is, the driver has never been identified by yourself as keeper nor by the operator and if that wrong dropdown menu choice was used then it was at most, an error but very possibly caused by the operator's own website defaulting to 'keeper/driver' as some are known to do, unfairly. Then reiterate that no NTK was received so under the POFA they have failed to establish 'keeper liability'.

    You will need to email all this to POPLA as a PDF (including all the above that I suggested earlier, tweaked to make sense to be written from you - i.e. remove where I've said 'say this, say that' obviously!). They'll accept it that way, no worries.

    Put the 10 digit POPLA code in the subject line and make sure you ask them to confirm that your rebuttal of evidence is added to the case file for the Assessor.

    :)
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • alebazialebazi Forumite
    30 Posts
    I cannot thank you enough Coupon-mad :)
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

NS&I to change Premium Bond prize rate

It will rise to 1.40% from June

MSE News

Compers of the MSE Forum:

Show us the prizes you've won recently

Join the MSE Forum discussion