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
    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 7th Feb 18, 10:57 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Sridout92
    Britania Parking Portswood POPLA Help
    • #1
    • 7th Feb 18, 10:57 PM
    Britania Parking Portswood POPLA Help 7th Feb 18 at 10:57 PM
    Hi,
    New here :)

    In Dec i received a parking notice from Britannia parking for overstaying in the Porstwood car park in Southampton. I have already appealed and received my POPLA code however i am a little confused with where to go from here (I have read all the newbie pages etc)

    The main point of argue is the lights that are meant to light up the signs are placed around 1/2m away, sat in the car park they are nearly impossible to read!

    I notice that a lot of POPLA appeals start with A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply. The parking notice issued reads as follows: You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the application conditions under section 4 of that act.
    Therefore am i still able to use the argument that a compliant notice to keeper was never issued?

    Appreciate all the help i can get and look forward to hearing from you.
    Last edited by Sridout92; 07-02-2018 at 11:16 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 11:02 PM
    • 57,393 Posts
    • 71,005 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:02 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:02 PM
    am i still able to use the argument that a compliant notice to keeper was never issued?
    Probably not, and certainly not if you admitted to being the driver in the appeal!

    GO back and take photos in the dark and use them to illustrate your appeal and show that the terms are just not readable, not even lit by car headlights as they are too high/wording too small and there is no ambient lighting in the site that is near enough to illuminate the signs, which are impossible to see in the dark.

    If you prove with photos how dark the place is, it's likely Britannia won't be able to disprove that.
    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.

    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 7th Feb 18, 11:03 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    • #3
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:03 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:03 PM
    I have not claimed to being the driver, i used the template on here so at no point have i claimed to be the driver, only the keeper. So is it ok to use that point now?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Feb 18, 11:07 PM
    • 35,589 Posts
    • 19,794 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #4
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:07 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:07 PM
    Your OP clearly shows who was driving - if you used wording like that in your appeal they don't need POFA!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 11:10 PM
    • 57,393 Posts
    • 71,005 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:10 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:10 PM
    Yes you can but I would put signage as your first point, with dark photos embedded in the word document to illustrate the point clearly and make compelling evidence for POPLA. Then 'no landowner authority' as point #2, then you can add that 'the NTK is not compliant with the POFA' just to bulk out the appeal and make it longer.

    More likely that a PPC will fold, if they see a long appeal and evidence of dark signage that they can't possibly disprove. Make sure none of your photos actually show readable wording!
    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.

    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 7th Feb 18, 11:12 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    • #6
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:12 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:12 PM
    Sorry i don't understand what you mean?

    I was quoting what was written on the parking charge notice?

    Below is what i appealed (and since received a POPLA code from):

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than 250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    • 57,393 Posts
    • 71,005 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    Your first post tells us who was driving! EDIT IT.
    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.

    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 7th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    • #8
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    Yes you can but I would put signage as your first point, with dark photos embedded in the word document to illustrate the point clearly and make compelling evidence for POPLA. Then 'no landowner authority' as point #2, then you can add that 'the NTK is not compliant with the POFA' just to bulk out the appeal and make it longer.

    More likely that a PPC will fold, if they see a long appeal and evidence of dark signage that they can't possibly disprove. Make sure none of your photos actually show readable wording!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Excellent thank you Coupon Mad. I will get down the car park tomorrow and take the photos.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 11:15 PM
    • 57,393 Posts
    • 71,005 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:15 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Feb 18, 11:15 PM
    At night...in darkness, no flash.
    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.

    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Feb 18, 11:20 PM
    • 35,589 Posts
    • 19,794 Thanks
    Quentin
    Sorry i don't understand what you mean?

    I was quoting what was written on the parking charge notice?
    ........
    Originally posted by Sridout92

    You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving!
    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 7th Feb 18, 11:23 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving!
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Sorry for the confusion, Better now ?
    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 16th Feb 18, 10:12 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    How does this sound any advice hugely appreciated:

    Appeal re POPLA code: !!!8211; 123456789 v Britannia Parking Group Ltd

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was NOT the driver.
    I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

    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.

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

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

    1) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

    The signs and the machine tariff board were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of !!!8216;plain intelligible language!!!8217;, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
    hxxp://xxx.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted
    68 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.
    It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:-

    hxxp://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:

    hxxp://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 in certain areas surrounded by larger, well-lit signs as to which your eyes are taken away from the smaller, darker signs placed next to them. 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 at there is no legible sign for Britannia parking, 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:

    hxxp://xxx-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    hxxp://xxx.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!!!8221; 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!!!8221; or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    hxxp://xxx.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:

    hxxp://xxx.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.
    Furthermore to all the above the lighting levels in the car park makes the already ineligible signs even harder to understand, from the space the car was parked, and the subsequent route in and out of the car park there are no purpose fitted luminaires for the said signs, this means that the signs require artificial light in order for a !!!8216;readable!!!8217; sign. The attached photos taken in the same lighting conditions show this. As well as this the first sign you are supposed to see when you enter the car park is overpowered by a larger sign less than a meter away and with a powerful light next to it, therefor naturally your vision is drawn to this and not the Britannia parking sign, a photo has been attached again showing this in the same lighting conditions and from the driver!!!8217;s seat.

    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) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

    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)!!!8212; (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 !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;
    It is my understanding that for an operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The Driver of the vehicle has not been identified (as confirmed in the operator!!!8217;s rejection of my appeal, dated 20th of December of 2016) and the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012 (no windscreen ticket was issued), specifically the following passage:

    !!!8220;2) The notice must !!!8211; f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given !!!8211; (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;!!!8221;

    The Notice to Keeper that was received (Parking Charge Number , dated 13th December of 2017) omits such information. I have included in my POPLA submission the two pages of the notice which confirms that such text is absent. The only instruction in this regard is as follows:

    !!!8220;You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the application conditions under section 4 of that act.!!!8221;

    Evidently, the operator has withheld from me (as the registered keeper) the required details of my liabilities in the event that the driver is not identified. This might be an omission on the part of the operator or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but regardless, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 (section 9).
    As this operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant 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 elaborated.

    END
    Last edited by Sridout92; 16-02-2018 at 11:50 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Feb 18, 10:37 PM
    • 57,393 Posts
    • 71,005 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Is this part true, was there a tariff board (not a free car park, then)?
    The signs and the machine tariff board were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of !!!8216;plain intelligible language!!!8217;, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
    hxxp://xxx.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted
    68 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.
    I would put this at the start of the point about unclear signs, not at the end, and with the changes shown, and with your photos DIRECTLY EMBEDDED to illustrate the document there and then, like a storyboook, not 'attached'. You want ONE document, one detailed but colourful appeal:

    Furthermore to all the above the The lighting levels in the car park makes the already ineligible illegible signs even harder to understand, from the space the car was parked, and the subsequent route in and out of the car park there are no purpose fitted luminaires is no direct or even sufficient ambient lighting for the said signs. This means that the signs require artificial light in order for the terms to be possibly read (albeit the parking charge is still not in the largest lettering). a !!!8216;readable!!!8217; sign.

    (show your dark photos here, do not use any that make the terms readable)


    The attached above photos taken in the same lighting conditions show this. As well as this the first sign that a driver is you are supposed to see and read all the small print in moving traffic, when you the driver enters the car park, is overpowered by a larger sign less than a meter away and with a powerful light next to it, therefore naturally your a driver's vision is drawn to this and not the Britannia parking sign. A photo has been attached again showing above shows this in the same lighting conditions and from the driver!!!8217;s seat.

    Remove this entirely from #3, and DO NOT show the NTK, it's helping them!
    The Notice to Keeper that was received (Parking Charge Number xxxxxxx, dated 13th December of 2017) omits such information. I have included in my POPLA submission the two pages of the notice which confirms that such text is absent. The only instruction in this regard is as follows:

    !!!8220;You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the application conditions under section 4 of that act.!!!8221;
    The reason for deleting that is that wording IS actually compliant! Don't quote it.


    Follow #3 with the usual template as #4, about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable. See the POPLA templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread for that one, and add it.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-02-2018 at 11:16 PM.
    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.

    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 16th Feb 18, 10:47 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    Is this part true, was there a tariff board (not a free car park, then)?


    I would put this at the start of the point about unclear signs, not at the end, and with the changes shown, and with your photos DIRECTLY EMBEDDED to illustrate the document there and then, like a storyboook, not 'attached'. You want ONE document, one detailed but colourful appeal:




    Remove this entirely from #3, and DO NOT show the NTK, it's helping them!


    The reason for deleting that is that wording IS actually compliant! Don't quote it.


    Follow #3 with the usual template as #4, about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable. See the POPLA templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread for that one, and add it.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    1) It is a free car park, sorry i was just using a template from a previous one. Should i just remove that line?

    2) Thats better wording thank you will move that to the top. The 100 is the second largest lettering (biggest is MAXIMUM STAY at the top of the sign) is this still inelligable.

    3) Should i not attach a photo of the parking notice if it does comply?

    Thank you for the help
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Feb 18, 10:53 PM
    • 57,393 Posts
    • 71,005 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    1) It is a free car park, sorry i was just using a template from a previous one. Should i just remove that line?
    Of course. It makes no sense. There is no 'tariff board''.

    inelligable.
    Illegible!

    3) Should i not attach a photo of the parking notice if it does comply?
    NOPE, because unless it arrived later than day 15, it does comply.

    Truth be told, you are pushing it with #3 and #4 but we do encourage a long appeal, to put the PPC off contesting it (takes too long). NEVER show the NTK, that's up to the other side to show & argue.

    Do include #3 and my suggested #4 but that's not what will win it (unless the NTK arrived late).

    #1 or #2 will have your best chance of winning.

    And like I said, you are not 'attaching' anything, except your appeal document, one PDF.

    You submit one document as your appeal, under 'OTHER' on the POPLA website, don't start ticking different choices, just 'OTHER' then you can upload evidence, which is uploading your appeal as a PDF. Make sure you upload the right thing, give the PDF a very memorable and unique file name, as the system is awful and you cannot check what you've uploaded before you submit.
    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.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 16th Feb 18, 10:56 PM
    • 18,114 Posts
    • 22,902 Thanks
    Redx
    remove the popla code from post #12

    also the pcn reference number and ask CM to edit post #13 to remove the pcn reference number too

    ie:- you really do need to watch what you write on the internet and on public forums , always proof read your posts and ensure no personal information is given away such that up to 7 billion people can read it
    Last edited by Redx; 16-02-2018 at 10:59 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
    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 16th Feb 18, 10:57 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    Of course. It makes no sense. There is no 'tariff board''.



    Illegible!


    NOPE, because unless it arrived later than day 15, it does comply.

    Truth be told, you are pushing it with #3 and #4 but we do encourage a long appeal, to put the PPC off contesting it (takes too long). NEVER show the NTK, that's up to the other side to show & argue.

    Do include #3 and my suggested #4 but that's not what will win it (unless the NTK arrived late).

    #1 or #2 will have your best chance of winning.

    And like I said, you are not 'attaching' anything, except your appeal document, one PDF.

    You submit one document as your appeal, under 'OTHER' on the POPLA website, don't start ticking different choices, just 'OTHER' then you can upload evidence, which is uploading your appeal as a PDF. Make sure you upload the right thing, give the PDF a very memorable and unique file name, as the system is awful and you cannot check what you've uploaded before you submit.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Sorry im new to all this aha!

    I will add all those bits Does the fact 100 is the second largest make it ILLegible ?

    The photos show how dark it is so im hoping that this is enough to win it alone but the padding should help by the sounds of it.
    • Sridout92
    • By Sridout92 16th Feb 18, 10:59 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Sridout92
    remove the popla code from post #12

    ie:- you really do need to watch what you write on the internet and on public forums , always proof read your posts and ensure no personal information is given away such that up to 7 billion people can read it
    Originally posted by Redx
    Sorry i am new to all this and the world of PCN! Dont mean to cause trouble appreciate all the help
    • Redx
    • By Redx 16th Feb 18, 11:01 PM
    • 18,114 Posts
    • 22,902 Thanks
    Redx
    we know, which is why your draft should NEVER include those references until just before submission to POPLA

    your pcn reference also needs editing in post #12 and CM needs to edit post #13 too (third paragraph from the bottom)

    what I am telling you has nothing to do with parking , its about what you do not publish on the internet for the world to see , reference numbers are just one of many things you DO NOT POST on the internet - period !

    good luck
    Last edited by Redx; 16-02-2018 at 11:04 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
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 17th Feb 18, 10:12 AM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
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

2,179Posts Today

7,894Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin