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
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 13th May 18, 12:21 AM
    • 23Posts
    • 11Thanks
    Faithp
    RingGo PCN as I bought ticket for a previously registered car. Should I just pay?
    • #1
    • 13th May 18, 12:21 AM
    RingGo PCN as I bought ticket for a previously registered car. Should I just pay? 13th May 18 at 12:21 AM
    Can anyone help please.. I know there's loads of threads on here but I'm very confused. I parked at a hospital as I was working there, used the RingGo system, which was playing up on my phone but eventually got it working.....I've previously used it to buy a ticket in a different location. On return to my car later that day I discovered a PCN. Turns out I had paid for parking but for my old scrapped car, my phone automatically put in those details when I was muddling around trying to get the ticket and I didn't think to check... Also my old reg is quite similar to the last so probably wouldn't have noticed even if I had. I appealed in a panic as I thought (stupidly) they would 'understand' but the PCN has been upheld. I have now received a reply from serco enforcement through the post informing me that I still have to pay as I had confirmed the information was correct, and received a text stating so.... (I was in a rush and didn't even think to check the details) and it's my fault I entered inaccurate information. Do I have a leg to stand on or should I take the 45 hit? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 12:25 AM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,716 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 13th May 18, 12:25 AM
    • #2
    • 13th May 18, 12:25 AM
    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators

    As Serco are in the BPA, you'll know from the NEWBIES FAQS thread about POPLA stage.

    Have you blabbed about who was driving?
    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.

    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 13th May 18, 12:35 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    • #3
    • 13th May 18, 12:35 AM
    • #3
    • 13th May 18, 12:35 AM
    Yes I believe so, I didn't specifically say I was but both cars registered on their system were mine and I paid the parking on my card...... I thought that as I'd actually paid the parking fee it wouldn't really matter that I had accidently used the wrong reg.
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 13th May 18, 12:45 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    • #4
    • 13th May 18, 12:45 AM
    • #4
    • 13th May 18, 12:45 AM
    Think it's best I just pay...... Thank you for your swift reply.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th May 18, 12:51 AM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 7,962 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #5
    • 13th May 18, 12:51 AM
    • #5
    • 13th May 18, 12:51 AM
    What??

    Please can you send me your name and address as I would like to send you a speculative invoice for 100.

    Tell you what... pay me before the end of the month and I'll give you a 75% discount.

    A bargain not to be missed... a limited time offer to save yourself 75.

    Use 45 of that to pay your parking charge and still be 30 in profit.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 12:59 AM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,716 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 13th May 18, 12:59 AM
    • #6
    • 13th May 18, 12:59 AM
    Think it's best I just pay.
    Originally posted by Faithp
    THAT IS A LUDICROUS RESPONSE.

    No-one does that here. It's only flippin' Serco who do parking tickets as an afterthought.

    What's the matter with people these days that they pay scams? READ THE NEWBIES THREAD.
    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.

    • waamo
    • By waamo 13th May 18, 1:02 AM
    • 3,668 Posts
    • 4,831 Thanks
    waamo
    • #7
    • 13th May 18, 1:02 AM
    • #7
    • 13th May 18, 1:02 AM
    Think it's best I just pay...... Thank you for your swift reply.
    Originally posted by Faithp
    Have you not seen the templates to use? There's a thread that tells Newbies to read it first. It contains a step by step guide to beating tickets including templates.

    People have won just by cutting and pasting. If you can cut and paste you can win.
    This space for hire.
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 19th May 18, 3:23 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    • #8
    • 19th May 18, 3:23 AM
    • #8
    • 19th May 18, 3:23 AM
    OK so before I saw the latest posts I tried to pay for the fine online, an error message came up.... Tried a couple of other times and it's the same.... So even if I wanted to pay it, I wouldn't be able to. I don't have a landline and mobile doesn't have signal at home! It's a sign!
    Do I now go through the POPLA appeals, copy and paste one together using everything I can? I'm not sure I admitted I was the driver just that I paid, and was there, should I include that I was the keeper not driver? I'm sorry for all the stupid questions. I'll get an appeal together on Sunday and post it on here to be checked over if possible.
    Many thanks again for your time.
    • Hockey27
    • By Hockey27 19th May 18, 8:16 AM
    • 87 Posts
    • 64 Thanks
    Hockey27
    • #9
    • 19th May 18, 8:16 AM
    • #9
    • 19th May 18, 8:16 AM
    First thing you need to do is stay calm and not rush things. Take the time to read all the information on these boards and from posters. You have sufficient windows (28 days) in which to appeal and consider your options so don't worry.

    To answer your questions. the aim is to get it to POPLA stage, in order to do this you must first lodge an "appeal" with the PPC itself. I say "appeal", its copy and paste text from the newbies thread (Blue text) that they will ignore completely, send you a rejection letter which should include a POPLA code. If it does great, come back and you will be helped through the next stage, if not, instant win cause they have to send one!

    So in short, don't panic, take your time, GO READ THE NEWBIES THREAD, read through other threads that are similar to yours, send off your appeal, then come back once you get a POPLA code.

    I recently beat a ticket with the help of the team here, I was worried as I didn't have a huge amount of time to fight it, but once you get clued up you realise there are many avenues available to you not to pay these clowns
    Last edited by Hockey27; 19-05-2018 at 8:18 AM. Reason: correcting poor grammar!
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 19th May 18, 9:20 AM
    • 36,346 Posts
    • 20,595 Thanks
    Quentin
    The OP is already at Popla stage!

    Don't miss the popla deadline

    Also be complaining vociferously to the hospital!!
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 19th May 18, 12:21 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    Thank you, yes I have a POPLA code, I stupidly appealed before coming on here.... I admitted purchasing the ticket and the two car regs being on my account, I didn't directly admit to being the driver.... Can I still use keeper in POPLA? Also the signage was clear so not sure I can use this but I paid for my spot, just on the wrong reg..... Can I use unfair charges as an argument? Yes going to contact hospital tomorrow... I called and they have nothing to do with the car park but am still going to send a letter tomorrow. Thank you for the advice.
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 19th May 18, 12:37 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    I will post a draft POPLA on here tomorrow and take it from there. Thanks for all of the help and advice :-)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th May 18, 12:11 AM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,716 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good - and glad to see Hockey27 sticking around to join the regular advisers!
    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.

    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 20th May 18, 8:43 AM
    • 3,113 Posts
    • 4,757 Thanks
    fisherjim
    Use your POPLA code come back here to get your appeal checked before sending.


    Serco who have their fingers in many pies, seem to be a small operator in the PPC industry their expertise and main focus is elsewhere.


    They don't do court:


    http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Serco.html
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 20th May 18, 12:15 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    Hi Guys,

    For the record you are such a wealth of knowledge, I'm honestly so grateful for all the comments on this thread, I'm a doughnut and would be totally lost without it!

    Here's a draft for the director of estates and facilities - any comments are much appreciated....

    Dear xxxxxxxx

    I am emailing you regarding a parking notice issued dd/mm by Serious. As the landowner I would like to appeal to you to cancel the parking notice.

    I cannot believe that Barts Health NHS Trust is supporting the harassment of patients and visitors by using a private parking company - all they are doing is issuing unenforceable penalties to people who are often distressed.

    The penalties being issued are 90 and in no way represent a fair charge. The amount being claimed in the parking notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of a loss to the trust. It is grossly exaggerated and is wholly unfair.

    The vehicle in question was parked in your car park and the driver had paid for a ticket. Unfortunately due to the complicated nature of the ticketing system RingGo the ticket was issued to a previously registered vehicle. One that is in fact no longer on the road, therefore the trust did in fact lose no money.

    I feel the circumstances of the situation should be taken into consideration by yourselves. As such, please can you issue a cancellation letter.

    Many thanks

    xxxxxxxx

    Would I also add PCN / ticket details or wait for a positive reply!?

    I will now get on with the POPLA letter.... My brain already hurts :-)

    Thanks again for all the advice.
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 20th May 18, 12:17 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    Whoops, serious is Serco.... Damn auto spell :-/
    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 20th May 18, 2:09 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    So here's the POPLA appeal..... suggested by Waamo, a bit of cut and pasting :-)
    In all honesty the whole thing has got me quite confused as I'm really not used to this kind of thing or writing at all!

    Appeal re POPLA Code xxxxx v Serco Enforcement


    Vehicle Reg xxxx


    POPLA ref: xxxx


    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from Serco 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

    The details on above points are listed below:-


    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.



    With this in mind I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform Serco to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.


    Your Sincerely


    xxxxxxx


    I was going to add a copy of the evidence they provided me, which was 3 photos, Car, car windscreen and Parking Charge Sign on wall.
    Also I'm not totally sure I can use notice to keeper? As you know from previous posts I took the bait and appealed initially to ticket and didn't wait for NTK. I haven't since had a NTK just an appeal rejection letter.....
    Also should I email to hospital director of facilities or does it need an edit?
    Thanks again.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th May 18, 11:12 PM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,716 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi Guys,

    For the record you are such a wealth of knowledge, I'm honestly so grateful for all the comments on this thread, I'm a doughnut and would be totally lost without it!

    Here's a draft for the director of estates and facilities - any comments are much appreciated....

    Dear xxxxxxxx

    I am emailing you regarding a parking notice issued dd/mm by Serious. As the landowner I would like to appeal to you to cancel the parking notice.

    I cannot believe that Barts Health NHS Trust is supporting the harassment of patients and visitors by using a private parking company - all they are doing is issuing unenforceable penalties to people who are often distressed.

    The penalties being issued are 90 and in no way represent a fair charge. The amount being claimed in the parking notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of a loss to the trust. It is grossly exaggerated and is wholly unfair.

    The vehicle in question was parked in your car park and the driver had paid for a ticket. Unfortunately due to the complicated nature of the ticketing system RingGo the ticket was issued to a previously registered vehicle. One that is in fact no longer on the road, therefore the trust did in fact lose no money.

    I feel the circumstances of the situation should be taken into consideration by yourselves. As such, please can you issue a cancellation letter.

    Many thanks

    xxxxxxxx

    Would I also add PCN / ticket details or wait for a positive reply!?

    I will now get on with the POPLA letter.... My brain already hurts :-)

    Thanks again for all the advice.
    Originally posted by Faithp
    I would add that Barts Health NHS Trust's parking regime breaches the Government Policy, and give them a link to it, ask why they are operating in flagrant disregard of rules set out in a formal Health Memorandum:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles


    From your POPLA appeal, remove this because the links no longer work and I need to edit the template:
    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'' 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:

    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.''
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 20-05-2018 at 11:15 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.

    • Faithp
    • By Faithp 20th May 18, 11:24 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Faithp
    I'll edit right now.... thank you again.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th May 18, 11:29 PM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,716 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And you need to read the rules about NHS car parks so you know what's not allowed, read the link, don't just throw it at Barts!

    A relative of mine works there at Barts, but he doesn't drive when in London. Can't blame him!
    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

3,467Posts Today

5,243Users online

Martin's Twitter