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
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 6th May 18, 11:29 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Beeson
    Ukpc appeal (help)
    • #1
    • 6th May 18, 11:29 AM
    Ukpc appeal (help) 6th May 18 at 11:29 AM
    I have been building up too sending off my first appeal on Day 26 after receiving my on screen ticket.
    However after sending off my appeal I then re-read the document over and noticed that it has been updated and UKPC, DO NOT have access too the DVLA anymore. My appeal has already been sent. I followed all the guidelines so it says I am the keeper and not the driver.
    Should I still send an appeal off too POPLA on day 56? Or do you think I should now stop worrying about it?

    Will update over the next month if I receive letters.
    Feel like an idiot, I was so close too being done with this!
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th May 18, 11:47 AM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,300 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 6th May 18, 11:47 AM
    • #2
    • 6th May 18, 11:47 AM
    I have been building up too sending off my first appeal on Day 26 after receiving my on screen ticket.
    However after sending off my appeal I then re-read the document over and noticed that it has been updated and UKPC, DO NOT have access too the DVLA anymore. My appeal has already been sent. I followed all the guidelines so it says I am the keeper and not the driver.
    Should I still send an appeal off too POPLA on day 56? Or do you think I should now stop worrying about it?

    Will update over the next month if I receive letters.
    Feel like an idiot, I was so close too being done with this!
    Originally posted by Beeson
    Could you explain what you mean by "updated" ???

    It is true that UKPC has been banned by the DVLA and
    we are unsure what date the ban came into force

    POPLA is the next step once UKPC provide a code, if they
    don't then you complain to the BPA
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th May 18, 12:50 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,151 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 6th May 18, 12:50 PM
    • #3
    • 6th May 18, 12:50 PM
    Could you explain what you mean by "updated" ???
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    The NEWBIES FAQ thread has been updated very recently to include:
    STOP PRESS APRIL 2018 - UKPC DO NOT HAVE DVLA ACCESS NOW!

    SO, WAIT FOR THE NOTICE TO KEEPER FIRST WHICH WILL NEVER ARRIVE AND YOU WILL HEAR NO MORE (SO DO NOT APPEAL A UKPC* TICKET, UNDERSTOOD?)


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-parking-control-dvla-suspension-misuse-of-data-a8325941.html

    https://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/ukpc-banned-by-dvla.html

    *UK Parking Control Ltd. Not any firm using a similar acronym to UKPC.
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th May 18, 1:38 PM
    • 10,631 Posts
    • 10,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 6th May 18, 1:38 PM
    • #4
    • 6th May 18, 1:38 PM
    UKPC are fraudsters, read this

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-parking-control-dvla-suspension-misuse-of-data-a8325941.html

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    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 they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,680 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 6th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • #5
    • 6th May 18, 3:09 PM
    I have been building up too sending off my first appeal on Day 26 after receiving my on screen ticket.
    However after sending off my appeal I then re-read the document over and noticed that it has been updated and UKPC, DO NOT have access too the DVLA anymore. My appeal has already been sent. I followed all the guidelines so it says I am the keeper and not the driver.
    Should I still send an appeal off too POPLA on day 56? Or do you think I should now stop worrying about it?

    Will update over the next month if I receive letters.
    Feel like an idiot, I was so close too being done with this!
    Originally posted by Beeson
    You are not an idiot, you could not have known.

    But guess what? You still win at POPLA!

    UKPC will either:

    - forget to issue a NTK

    or

    - use the data you gave them, to issue a NTK.

    Even if they do manage the second option, a NTK is not a compliant document to establish 'keeper liability' unless the data was supplied by the Secretary of State (i.e. the DVLA). Read Schedule 4 and search it for 'Secretary' and you will see that is true. ONLY keeper data gleaned from the DVLA count under that law (even if you supplied your own data in an appeal).

    So, whatever happens, POPLA will not be able to find that any NTK complies with Schedule 4. It will be a lot easier if UKPC just forget to send a NTK altogether. Let us know!
    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
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 10th May 18, 5:33 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Beeson
    • #6
    • 10th May 18, 5:33 PM
    UKPC APPEAL (Thanks - MID WAY)
    • #6
    • 10th May 18, 5:33 PM
    I want too start by thanking all of you for the quick responses to this post, you all put my mind at ease very quickly!
    I received my NTK through email on the 9th of May 2018 (So upon time of writing this yesterday).
    At least I believe it is an NTK, I have a POPLA reference number and it is a notice of my failure in the appeal.
    Had a look at the pictures, ridiculously bad.
    Just too confirm that it was on the 56th day I appeal too POPLA after being issued the windowed ticket?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th May 18, 5:36 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,151 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 10th May 18, 5:36 PM
    • #7
    • 10th May 18, 5:36 PM
    A letter refusing your appeal and supplying a PoPLA code is not a Notice to Keeper.

    Have you received any other letter apart from that appeal refusal letter?
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th May 18, 5:43 PM
    • 19,963 Posts
    • 25,278 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 10th May 18, 5:43 PM
    • #8
    • 10th May 18, 5:43 PM
    Just too confirm that it was on the 56th day I appeal too POPLA after being issued the windowed ticket?
    Originally posted by Beeson
    not necessarily

    you are advised to upload your popla appeal as a pdf choosing OTHER before day 33 after the date on this appeal refusal

    they tell you within 28 days but the code works for up to 33 days , so 28 days for safety, from the date of the refusal

    this refusal is an appeal refusal , not an NTK , hopefully they wont be issuing an NTK and even if they do it wont be one where they got the keeper data from the DVLA, so no evidence fo the true keeper

    UKPC should issue an NTK and an appeal refusal, especially after a windscreen ticket

    their current DVLA ban makes it much , much harder for them to comply
    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
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th May 18, 5:43 PM
    • 37,946 Posts
    • 22,059 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #9
    • 10th May 18, 5:43 PM
    • #9
    • 10th May 18, 5:43 PM
    Just too confirm that it was on the 56th day I appeal too POPLA after being issued the windowed ticket?
    Originally posted by Beeson
    No you got it wrong about the 56 days

    Read up in the Newbies FAQ thread on the time scales

    Make sure you use your popla code within its deadline
    Last edited by Quentin; 10-05-2018 at 5:46 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 1:28 AM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,680 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You have not had a NTK. Obviously a rejection letter/email is not a NTK.
    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
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 11th May 18, 11:07 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Beeson
    Thank you all very much!
    Yeah I have only received an appeal refusal with a POPLA code on it, I take it an NTK will come in the post or can it still come by email?
    I imagine it will come from UKPC directly?
    Also, thank you Coupon-mad your Newbie post was a god send when I got the ticket!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 2:26 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,680 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    UKPC can't send a NTK because the DVLA won't divulge your data. UKPC being banned.

    You are worrying about nothing and a keeper appeal will win at POPLA.
    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
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 30th May 18, 5:14 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Beeson
    Okay quick update on this situation.
    I have currently recieved no NTK as of this date.
    Just for clarification, I recieved my appeal decline and POPLA reference code on the 9th of May 2018, So I should send off my POPLA appeal on the 7th of June?
    Not only that, but I was struggling to see a layout of a POPLA appeal letter on the Newbie forum. Am I being blind?
    Thanks everyone
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th May 18, 5:16 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,151 Thanks
    KeithP
    You are looking for the third post on the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Looks like three weeks lost here.
    Last edited by KeithP; 30-05-2018 at 5:45 PM.
    .
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 31st May 18, 1:32 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Beeson
    I have found the following letter to POPLA and as I have also not recieved an NTK I feel as though this all applies. Does this sound good to everyone?

    Also KeithP what do you mean by three weeks lost?


    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:


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

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

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

    4. 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


    1. 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)!!!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;

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper!!!8217;s address within the !!!8216;relevant period!!!8217; 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.


    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    !!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    3. 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


    4. 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:

    WEB LINK as per template

    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:

    WEB LINK as per template

    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:

    WEB LINK as per template

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

    WEB LINK as per template

    ''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:

    WEB LINK as per template

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

    WEB LINK as per template

    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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 31st May 18, 3:19 PM
    • 3,977 Posts
    • 4,784 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You could have started your appeal three weeks ago, so you had four weeks to refine it, not one
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 1st Jun 18, 2:06 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Beeson
    You could have started your appeal three weeks ago, so you had four weeks to refine it, not one
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Ah I see what you mean. Sadly don't have much time these days so make do with the time I have. Just double checking that the appeal letter is fine? I have some pictures of the area in question that I can add as my evidence plus I still haven't received an NTK so I imagine I should have no problems.
    • Beeson
    • By Beeson 5th Jun 18, 7:56 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Beeson
    Just finishing up my appeal letter.
    Wanted to ask, the newbies post stated that you shouldn't use a template dated before 2017, but I am struggling to find an appeal towards UKPC where no NTK was issued.
    Is the above template still valid and fine to use?
    Also not sure about the areas in section 4 which state "WEB LINK as per template" I am struggling to find said template.
    Can anyone help?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jun 18, 8:07 PM
    • 10,728 Posts
    • 11,151 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the date of the letter declining your appeal - not the date you received it?

    It is that date that determines when your PoPLA appeal is due.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jun 18, 2:41 AM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,680 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    FaithP has just written a ''no NTK'' POPLA appeal about Serco, a different PPC:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5842199&page=2

    What makes you think you must find a UKPC one? Nope, just a similar one.
    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
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

203Posts Today

1,670Users online

Martin's Twitter