One parking solution v me

MistyZ · 13 June 2019 at 9:00PM

fakdeworld wrote: »

I wanted to refer to the commentary and evidence that OPS sent.
I want to point out that I do not agree with many things in their comments. I also wanted to say that despite the fact that I feel defenseless and vulnerable in this attack due to the lack of full English language knowledge, I will try to defend myself.
My earlier comment did not reflect what I wanted to convey, so this time I allowed myself to use Google Translate.
First of all, I would like to say that I do not agree with the remark that the driver's liability can no longer be taken into account, as it has become obsolete. I think that ,this is usually a lie aimed at extorting money as quickly as possible and at the same time quickly closing the case.OPS has not provided me with any documents about the fact that the liability can not be transferred to the driver .
Driver data will still be sent to OPS by both post and e-mail anyway ,and the proof of postage will be saved.
Despite the fact that OPS claims that the signs are good, I think that the information contained therein is not readable enough. The letters are small and difficult to read.
Also, I think that the sum expected from me is inadequate for the deed committed. OPS did not provide me with any documents that are genuine pre-estimated of loss to show me how they come up with £100.The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days, returned to £100 and reduced once more following appeal) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner.

OPS have sent me the alleged 'full car park terms and conditions' which their says are 'available upon request' but there is no evidence that these full t&cs are on display on site for the driver to have seen and read. The t&c is dated at 04/08/2016 ,so I believe that could be out of date. It is respectfully request that this comments is upheld and the charge dismissed. Thank you .

You are going to remove the bit I've coloured red, right?

As you have 2,000 characters for your comments, removing the 'no GPEOL' bit means you could perhaps give the bit I've highlighted in blue a paragraph to itself as it is so important.

I don't think the language needs many changes. The word 'obsolete' sounds a little odd maybe and might confuse a dim POPLA assessor. How about using the PPC's own words, e.g. 'OPS state that the opportunity to transfer liability to the driver has long since passed. This is untrue.' (etc.)

fakdeworld · 13 June 2019 at 9:54PM

thanks. i removed all the files and will upload them again in a while

fakdeworld · 13 June 2019 at 9:56PM

how should i upload the files then?do i have to use the Photobucket?

Coupon-mad · 13 June 2019 at 9:58PM

Don't worry about the files now. I did look at them in time.

Comments:

''The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site''.

Wrong. The appellant wasn't driving.

''At the time of the contravention the appellant was not displaying a valid pay and display ticket''

The appellant wasn't even there.

The Appellant states he wants to pass the driver’s details to One Parking Solution. The opportunity to transfer liability has long since passed.

This is a lie. The POFA allows a keeper to name the driver before action commences, and the keeper will do so if POPLA misses the fact that:

The landowner contract is 3 years old (valid for 12 month at the time) and refers ONLY to a 'Standard Service' PERMIT (not PDT machine) scheme enforced by visiting patrol officers on foot, who the document says, will take photos of cars relative to the signs in the background.

There is no evidence of who signed the contract for the landowner, if at all, nor that it continues in 2019 or into perpetuity. Even if it does, the contract isn't for a PDT machine or ANPR enforced scheme.

Whilst the 'HAVE YOU PAID AND DISPLAYED?' font is large and visible, the £100 parking charge term is in extremely tiny writing and at ankle height in the car park. POPLA cannot conclude this PCN was properly given, due to the signs and lack of up to date ANPR/PDT machine contract.

fakdeworld · 13 June 2019 at 10:01PM

"Also, I think that the sum expected from me is inadequate for the deed committed. OPS did not provide me with any documents that are genuine pre-estimated of loss to show me how they come up with £100.,,

Do i have to remove all in red or just the phrase above? Just double checking

Coupon-mad · 13 June 2019 at 10:03PM

Just put what I put instead.

fakdeworld · 13 June 2019 at 10:03PM

thank you. should i change the wording for the one you suggested?

fakdeworld · 13 June 2019 at 10:05PM

got it. thank you

fakdeworld · 13 June 2019 at 10:51PM

I hope this one looks better . Please leave some comments!

I wanted to refer to the commentary and evidence that OPS sent.
I also wanted to point out that I do not agree with many things in their comments.

I also wanted to say that despite the fact that I feel defenseless and vulnerable in this attack due to the lack of full English language knowledge, I will try to defend myself. My earlier comment did not reflect what I wanted to convey, so this time I allowed myself to use Google Translate.

First of all, I would like to say that I do not agree with the remark that the driver's liability can no longer be taken into account.One Parking Solution said that the opportunity to transfer liability has long since passed.This is untrue. I think that ,this is usually a lie aimed at extorting money as quickly as possible and at the same time quickly closing the case.
OPS has not provided me with any documents about the fact that the liability can not be transferred to the driver .Driver data will still be sent to OPS by both post and e-mail anyway ,and the proof of postage will be saved.
The POFA allows a keeper to name the driver before action commences, and the keeper will do so if POPLA misses the fact that:

The landowner contract is 3 years old (valid for 12 month at the time) and refers ONLY to a 'Standard Service' PERMIT (not PDT machine) scheme enforced by visiting patrol officers on foot, who the document says, will take photos of cars relative to the signs in the background.

There is no evidence of who signed the contract for the landowner, if at all, nor that it continues in 2019 or into perpetuity. Even if it does, the contract isn't for a PDT machine or ANPR enforced scheme.

Whilst the 'HAVE YOU PAID AND DISPLAYED?' font is large and visible, the £100 parking charge term is in extremely tiny writing and at ankle height in the car park. POPLA cannot conclude this PCN was properly given, due to the signs and lack of up to date ANPR/PDT machine contract.

OPS also stated ;
''The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. Wrong. The appellant wasn't driving,and
''At the time of the contravention the appellant was not displaying a valid pay and display ticket''.Wrong. The appellant wasn't even there.

Despite the fact that OPS claims that the signs are good, I think that the information contained therein is not readable enough. The letters are small and difficult to read.

OPS have sent me the alleged 'full car park terms and conditions' which their website says are 'available upon request' but there is no evidence that these full t&cs are on display on site for the driver to have seen and read. The t&c is dated at 04/08/2016 ,so I believe that could be out of date.

It is respectfully request that this comments is upheld and the charge dismissed. Thank you

Coupon-mad · 13 June 2019 at 11:50PM

No, that's 2784 characters and you only have 2000, so just copy what I put EXACTLY, and do it NOW, as your comments box disappears overnight.

One parking solution v me

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free