Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Custard Pie
    PoPLA evidence - What to submit
    • #1
    • 13th Aug 13, 2:49 PM
    PoPLA evidence - What to submit 13th Aug 13 at 2:49 PM
    As we now know that PPC are being coached by PoPLA on what to submit for assessment.

    Let's do something similar for motorists and make it a sticky.

    I will do a starter for ten (obviously tailor to suit the charge received and for relevance):

    "I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice received.


    I have researched the matter and would like to point out the following:


    UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

    Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance or exists to any of the shops.

    I contend that the signs and any core parking terms (PPC) are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])


    CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

    (PPC) do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, (PPC) have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

    I would also request that POPLA to please check whether (PPC) have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

    I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.

    (PPC) also make reference in their appeal refusal of (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.

    I further contend that (PPC) have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

    NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER

    There is no contract between PCC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

    UNFAIR TERMS

    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

    UNREASONABLE

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

    There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was only at xx% capacity and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can (PPC) lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

    The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges of £xx.xx for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by xx% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.

    UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

    Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

    The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

    FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE

    I contacted (PPC) on ??/??/13 and clearly stated that I denied all liability to their company and required a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently as per the BPA Code of Practice. I had nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the POPLA code. I would assume the appeal will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time frame stipulated above.

    (PPC) ignored this requirement. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They went on to further attempt to bully me by “ advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at end. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.” “If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.”

    SUMMARY

    On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.
Page 1
  • Custard Pie
    • #2
    • 14th Aug 13, 12:53 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Aug 13, 12:53 PM
    Bump. No comments?
    • zzzLazyDaisy
    • By zzzLazyDaisy 14th Aug 13, 6:38 PM
    • 12,134 Posts
    • 18,762 Thanks
    zzzLazyDaisy
    • #3
    • 14th Aug 13, 6:38 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Aug 13, 6:38 PM
    This is a GREAT thread - hopefully people will be along soon to comment.

    My twopennorth - ANPR

    challenge compliance with the BPA CoP re maintenance of ANPR equipment and ask for documentary evidence of maintenance and calibration.

    Also challenge DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) and ask for proof of compliance.

    Daisy
    I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.
  • Custard Pie
    • #4
    • 15th Aug 13, 10:48 AM
    • #4
    • 15th Aug 13, 10:48 AM
    Bump. Can we make this a sticky please!
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 15th Aug 13, 11:16 AM
    • 10,893 Posts
    • 10,398 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #5
    • 15th Aug 13, 11:16 AM
    • #5
    • 15th Aug 13, 11:16 AM
    Bump. Can we make this a sticky please!
    Originally posted by Custard Pie
    Not yet.

    You need to expand your pre-estimate of loss section to include more about what is NOT acceptable to include.

    See here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231 paras 22 on and here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4739105


    Also under the signage, you don't refer to the BPA requirements or lighting at night. The appeal should demand that the PPC submits evidence that the signage complies with the BPA minimum standards including colours used as drivers may be colour blind.

    In general, the tone that you demand POPLA request or check isn't one I would use. You demand that the PPC demonstrates, not request that POPLA checks

    Contract. You know POPLA have colluded with PPCs in accepting witness statements signed by the landowner. Not good enough, it could be any stooge. If they don't bring the contract, then raise the point that contracts are complicated things and in the case of Parking Eye -v- somerfield (a precedent) that PE had the right under contract to write a number of letters to chase motorists but NOT to take them to court. You demand that if a witness statement is to be relied on, then the landowner must send in a letter on their headed notepaper confirming that the person signing the witness statement on their behalf has had sight of the contract, is authorised to sign on their behalf and confirms that the specific point about pursuing debts to court is included in the contract.

    That's enough to be going on with for now.
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 15th Aug 13, 11:28 AM
    • 2,650 Posts
    • 3,411 Thanks
    nigelbb
    • #6
    • 15th Aug 13, 11:28 AM
    • #6
    • 15th Aug 13, 11:28 AM
    In general, the tone that you demand POPLA request or check isn't one I would use. You demand that the PPC demonstrates, not request that POPLA checks
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    This. The motorist submits evidence to POPLA which is sent to the PPC. The PPC submits evidence to POPLA which is sent to the motorist. This is the point at which challenges on the validity of that evidence should be made not by trying to tell POPLA how to do their job in the initial appeal.

    If the infamous 'witness statement' is submitted then the motorist should counter by submitting to POPLA that it's not a witness statement at all just a form filled in by the PPC & signed by an office junior. Anything less than the full contract is unacceptable despite POPLA's collusion with the PPCs. Without sight of the full contract how are POPLA or the motorist to know what other clauses are in the contract that may have bearing on the case e.g. just as GD points out in the contract PE had with Somerfield they were specifically forbidden to take victims to court.
  • Custard Pie
    • #7
    • 15th Aug 13, 3:47 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Aug 13, 3:47 PM
    Delete/amend wording in red as appropriate.

    "I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice number xxxxx received.


    I have researched the matter, taken legal advice and would like to point out the following as my appeal against said charge:


    UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

    Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance or exists to any of the shops.

    I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand.

    I require that the Operator's provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

    I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])


    CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND/OR NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

    The operator does not appear to own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, The operator has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

    I require The operator to provides a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.

    Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original showing the points above is the only acceptable items as evidence that a contract exists and authorises The Operator the right, under contract to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.

    I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

    I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.

    The Operator also make reference in their appeal refusal of (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.

    USE OF ANPR and DATA COLLATION

    I further contend that The Operator has failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require them to provide documented compliance to this section of the Code in its entirety.
    This evidence must show documentary proof of contemporaneous manual checks, maintenance, calibration and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

    I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also complaint with legal and BPA requirements and demand that they demonstrate adherence.

    NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER

    There is no contract between PCC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

    UNFAIR TERMS

    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

    UNREASONABLE

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

    There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. <delete as required or replace with free for xxx hours, or charged at £xxx per hour, etc> On the date of the claimed loss it was only at xx% capacity and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can (PPC) lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff) in any 'loss' claimed. This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjucation.

    I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

    The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges of £xx.xx for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by xx% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.

    UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

    Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

    The operator is either charging for losses or it is a penalty/fine.

    The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

    FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE

    I contacted The Operator on ??/??/13 and clearly stated that I denied all liability to their company and required a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently as per the BPA Code of Practice. I had nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the POPLA code. I would assume the appeal will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time frame stipulated above.

    The Operator ignored this requirement. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They went on to further attempt to bully me by “ advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at end. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.” “If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.”


    SUMMARY

    On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.
    Search my post " PoPLA evidence - What to submit" on what is a good defense for a PoPLA appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Aug 13, 4:53 PM
    • 78,297 Posts
    • 91,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 15th Aug 13, 4:53 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Aug 13, 4:53 PM
    We do need a sticky like this as we can't keep posting the same old stuff to people who can't be bothered to read & search for threads to learn about challenges and POPLA. Thanks for starting it, Custard Pie.

    The 'ParkingCowboys' website page 'How to win your POPLA Appeal' is worth linking on this thread too. Can't seem to access it right now.

    And I like a bit of case law and UTCCR etc. to be quoted, for those who like that sort of thing. My post #2 here includes some:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4695227

    And Equality Act 2010 for cases where there's an elderly, long-term ill, or disabled person (driver or passenger) or pregnant or breastfeeding lady against whom the scumbags have alleged an 'overstay'. My post #24 refers:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4714743

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Custard Pie
    • #9
    • 19th Aug 13, 1:54 PM
    • #9
    • 19th Aug 13, 1:54 PM
    Can we now make this a sticky to avoid going over the same ground with every new post?
    Search my post " PoPLA evidence - What to submit" on what is a good defense for a PoPLA appeal.
  • Custard Pie
    BUMP as still not a sticky
    Search my post " PoPLA evidence - What to submit" on what is a good defense for a PoPLA appeal.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 27th Aug 13, 1:38 PM
    • 10,893 Posts
    • 10,398 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I will give this as a reference thread.

    May I make a suggestion? When you bring out a revised version, why not alter any previous versions to read UPDATED - PLEASE SEE POST #XX so that people only have the latest version to work with?

    And do keep bumping weekly!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Aug 13, 5:57 PM
    • 78,297 Posts
    • 91,927 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I will give this as a reference thread.

    May I make a suggestion? When you bring out a revised version, why not alter any previous versions to read UPDATED - PLEASE SEE POST #XX so that people only have the latest version to work with?

    And do keep bumping weekly!
    Originally posted by Guys Dad



    I have this one and a thread by Guy's Dad as a reference thread in my normal 'look here's how to do a POPLA appeal' post:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=62180281&posted=1

    So hopefully newbies are seeing this thread regularly even though it's not a sticky.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • geordie_ben
    • By geordie_ben 7th Oct 13, 11:34 AM
    • 3,095 Posts
    • 9,140 Thanks
    geordie_ben
    Morning

    If I'm submitting my first appeal to the NtK letter, can I use the above template?
    Remember, remember, REMEMBER cashback and discount codes!
    Officially Debt Free as of 25/03/11
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 7th Oct 13, 11:43 AM
    • 14,794 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    I think this thread relates to POPLA stage. Your first appeal to the PPC doesn't need to be anywhere near as detailed as what this thread contains. The premise being for the PPC to reject your appeal (which they likely will regardless) and so get a POPLA code.
    • martmonk
    • By martmonk 7th Oct 13, 11:51 AM
    • 859 Posts
    • 913 Thanks
    martmonk
    Morning

    If I'm submitting my first appeal to the NtK letter, can I use the above template?
    Originally posted by geordie_ben

    GB - no this is for POPLA appeals.

    start your own thread so that you get the right advice.

    Do some reading first on the first few pages and the stickys.

    Include in your first post the name of the parking company, the date of the alleged 'offence', whether you received a windscreen ticket or not, the date of the NtK, whether the car park was in Scotland.

    Might be useful to also name the car park as others might have specific experience.
    • Zoe smith
    • By Zoe smith 24th Apr 15, 12:01 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    Zoe smith
    Hi, custard pie.

    I am new to this forum.

    I have just been reading some threads and your comments have helped me understand a little better.

    I have appealed my PCN to the company on the PCN. They have refused my appeal. It states that if I wish to appeal again I would need to do so to Poplar, however if I am not successful my fine will double.

    Can I use your template above to appeal to Poplar? Also I could not find the company on BPA or IPC list.

    I'm concerned I have left myself open to a scam.

    Many thanks

    Zoe
    • Zoe smith
    • By Zoe smith 24th Apr 15, 12:13 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    Zoe smith
    Also what does PCC and NTK mean?

    Sorry I'm new to this.

    thanks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 24th Apr 15, 12:16 PM
    • 25,445 Posts
    • 32,709 Thanks
    Redx
    start a new thread please

    blue NEW THREAD button top left near the green banner on the main forum

    add the name of the PPC (company) too, so we know who we are dealing with

    then READ the NEWBIES sticky thread just below the green banner

    one post has all the acronyms explained in there ( post #2 ? )
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Zoe smith
    • By Zoe smith 24th Apr 15, 1:22 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    Zoe smith
    Sorry

    I can't see the new thread button
    • Redx
    • By Redx 24th Apr 15, 1:26 PM
    • 25,445 Posts
    • 32,709 Thanks
    Redx
    go to the main forum (parking tickets, fines and parking), look near the top just above the green banner line

    its there , plus its also on the bottom left of the page too , next to the footer green line
    Last edited by Redx; 24-04-2015 at 1:32 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

261Posts Today

4,119Users online

Martin's Twitter