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
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 15th Dec 17, 11:09 AM
    • 38Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Ruby82
    Parkwatch ticket
    • #1
    • 15th Dec 17, 11:09 AM
    Parkwatch ticket 15th Dec 17 at 11:09 AM
    Hi
    I would like to know if any one can help on how to appeal at popla for parking over A bay.
    As my appeal is rejected at parkwatch.
    It was at Deepdale Retail Park whilst shopping.
    It wasnt much over over the line but still got parkwatch ticket.

    Any help would be appreciated
    Thanks
Page 3
    • Castle
    • By Castle 1st Jan 18, 10:37 PM
    • 1,770 Posts
    • 2,395 Thanks
    Castle
    That's a Reminder, not the original NTK.
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 1st Jan 18, 10:41 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Lol
    Law and regulations bamboozle me, i have felt its been a struggle and I am trying.
    I have to submit the appeal by tomorrow so i dont have time.
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 1st Jan 18, 10:47 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Is that not a ntk?
    If not Then i haven't received anything else through the post.
    Other than the pcn on the windscreen and appeal refusal email.
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 1st Jan 18, 11:20 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Re: Parking Charge reference number: xxxxxx
    Vehicle registration: xxxxxxx
    POPLA reference number xxxxxx

    I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I wish to appeal the above parking charge from Parkwatch issued at xxxx on xxx, xxxx. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.


    1) The signage was not adequate so there was no valid contract formed.
    2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
    3) 1. No Keeper Liability: (i) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 and (ii) there was no transparent 'relevant contract' nor 'relevant obligation' capable of being breached, nor was any such risk accepted by a driver in the knowledge of the driver.


    1-The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.



    2-No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.


    3-A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.


    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. Parkwatch have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

    The notice must be given by—
    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was, which brings me to point #2:



    Could anybody run through this?
    If it is enough?
    Thanks everyone once again.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Jan 18, 9:00 AM
    • 18,019 Posts
    • 28,539 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    That's a Reminder, not the original NTK.
    Originally posted by Castle
    There won’t have been a letter headed Notice to Keeper. This was initially a windscreen ticket issued on 3/10/17. With the 28 day period before access to the DVLA database the earliest the first letter to the keeper could have been issued is 3/11/17. Date of issue - 3/11/17.

    Treat as a formal Notice to Keeper and pick holes in it in the context of PoFA Schedule 4, and in particular para 8.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 2nd Jan 18, 10:35 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Is the above draft not enough?
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 2nd Jan 18, 11:02 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Could anybody advice me if the above #44 templates are enough to submit.
    Thanks
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 3rd Jan 18, 5:37 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Could you tell me if #44 is enough to submit.
    Ive not had any response from anyone else.
    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 9:50 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    After point #3, add the usual template that the appellant has not been shown to the the individual liable (see post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, as it is there).

    And because there is a new (I hope not rogue, just clueless) Assessor at POPLA now who clearly has not been trained properly, in case you get them, I would add this at the end:

    Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given within 56 days. POPLA Assessor, if you think that looking at the Notice to Driver instead, and comparing that to the POFA is acceptable (as happened in a very wrong 'Gemini Parking' POPLA decision prior to Christmas that is in the public domain and needs addressing as a terrible POPLA error and woeful lack of POFA training) then you are not correct, must NOT take that step and must refer this case first, to your Lead Adjudicator, because POPLA is not entitled under any rule of law to make a finding against a registered keeper in a case without a valid Notice to Keeper. This will continue to be stated in appeals until all POPLA Assessors get this simple matter right.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 5th Jan 18, 6:32 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    To coupon mad

    Am sorry ive already submitted the appeal due to no reply
    Would it affect my appeal not adding all that?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jan 18, 11:23 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, just add it to your bullet points when you get a POPLA email about your 7 days to comment on the PPC's evidence.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 29th Jan 18, 6:26 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    Decision
    Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name
    Zara Parkinson

    Assessor summary of operator case

    The operator, Park Watch has issued a PCN for not parking wholly within a marked bay.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant states that the signage on the site is inadequate. She is of the opinion that due to this no contract was formed. The appellants states that she does not believe that the operator has the authority to manage this site and issue PCN’s.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant has indicated that she is the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxx. As such, I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which, if strict requirements are met, allows a parking operator to transfer the liability for a parking charge notice (PCN) from the driver of a vehicle to the keeper of a vehicle. Section 9, sub paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states; “The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. Furthermore, Section 9 sub paragraph 5 states; “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” On review of the evidence provided to me, I am satisfied that the operator has adhered to the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The PCN was attached to the windscreen of vehicle xxxxxx on the date of contravention 3 October 2017. As no response was received from the driver of the vehicle, the operator requested the keepers details from the DVLA on 1 November 2017. I will therefore be considering the appellants liability as registered keeper of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of this site, Deepdale Shopping Park state: “This land is private property, Park within the white lines of the parking bay only”. “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions may result in a parking charge”. Further, the terms state: “£100 parking charge reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days”. The operator, Park Watch has issued a PCN for not parking wholly within a marked bay. The operator has provided time stamped photographs taken by its parking warden. These captured the vehicle parked on site in the centre of two click and collect bays at 14:46 on 3 October 1017. The appellant states that the signage on the site is inadequate. She is of the opinion that due to this no contract was formed. As the appellant has questioned the signage at the site I must consider if the parking operator has met the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which outlines the minimum requirements in relation to signage. In response, the operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states the following: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. Furthermore, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The appellants states that she does not believe that the operator has the authority to manage this site and issue PCN’s. In response the appellant has provided a copy of its license agreement signed by the landowner, in October 2015. The BPA Code of Practice states in section 7.1, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has produced, copy of its license agreement signed by both the landowner, in October 2015 to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepted the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to her. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satisfied the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.



    Please can you tell me whats the next step and is it worth fighting it.
    Its very disappointing.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jan 18, 6:36 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You said:
    i haven't received anything else through the post.
    Other than the pcn on the windscreen and appeal refusal email.
    But POPLA said:

    On review of the evidence provided to me, I am satisfied that the operator has adhered to the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The PCN was attached to the windscreen of vehicle xxxxxx on the date of contravention 3 October 2017. As no response was received from the driver of the vehicle, the operator requested the keepers details from the DVLA on 1 November 2017.
    ...but they didn't actually say 'and the operator then issued a Notice to Keeper that they have provided in evidence'...

    ...so, in the evidence pack, was there a NTK dated November? You said there was no NTK.

    Show us the evidence pack NTK, if you can still access it.

    If there was no NTK in evidence, POPLA have screwed up, again.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 29th Jan 18, 10:18 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    I received a pcn on windscreen and a reminder notice through the post.
    When i uploaded it here Somebody said thats not a ntk is just a reminder notice of the fine.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Jan 18, 10:34 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    An image of the NtK is linked from post #39.
    .
    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 29th Jan 18, 11:22 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    CASTLE replied #41 its not an NTK but just a reminder


    What would i need to do now could any one provide any help.?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Jan 18, 11:26 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    CASTLE replied #41 its not an NTK but just a reminder.
    Originally posted by Ruby82
    But was corrected in post #45.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jan 18, 11:29 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    There won!!!8217;t have been a letter headed Notice to Keeper. This was initially a windscreen ticket issued on 3/10/17. With the 28 day period before access to the DVLA database the earliest the first letter to the keeper could have been issued is 3/11/17. Date of issue - 3/11/17.

    Treat as a formal Notice to Keeper and pick holes in it in the context of PoFA Schedule 4, and in particular para 8.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Umkomaas did put right the info about the NTK 'reminder' as above. But yes it's not a bad version in wording, so I can see why POPLA say it's OK. So what, is the answer, it's only POPLA.

    So you lost at POPLA, big deal really! It's only Park watch, no-one pays just because they lose at POPLA. Tons of threads like yours - including TODAY!

    Obvious forum search is this, below, I would hope & expect you've already looked at the forum & searched, rather than staying here and panicking?

    POPLA lost

    Do search the forum for those words rather than us repeating what we say on every thread the same.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ruby82
    • By Ruby82 29th Jan 18, 11:30 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Ruby82
    What is my chances and next steps now
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jan 18, 11:32 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Cross posted. Please search the forum! Staying isolated on a thread does not help you.

    This is NO BIG DEAL.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

90Posts Today

1,872Users online

Martin's Twitter