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
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 31st Dec 18, 1:45 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 7Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Euro car parks PCN help pls
    • #1
    • 31st Dec 18, 1:45 PM
    Euro car parks PCN help pls 31st Dec 18 at 1:45 PM
    New to this forum so pls don’t shout. Trying to figure out exact process to follow to appeal but finding this forum confusing to find stuff, taken me ages to know how to post
    So I think I finally found the Newbies thread everyone refers to but worried as it seems to date back to 2013. Is there just the one template letter for appeals? If anyone could copy and paste it here or a link just to confirm that would be great pls.
    Brief story, got a PCN from Euro through the post for over staying in car park by 11 minutes. In all honesty my pram wouldn’t fold to go in the boot as button broke then baby had a melt down! Had I of known they had cameras monitoring the in/out time I would have tried to be quicker!
    Anyone can’t afford £100 which I do this is a rip off so would like to try and appeal. Sorry if this is duplicate to other posts. Any advice much appreciated. X
Page 2
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 23rd Feb 19, 1:57 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Thx how about the other points please?
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 23rd Feb 19, 2:33 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Popla draft letter part 1
    Ok so here is my draft letter omitting the info at the top obviously.
    Please advise if ok. Total time entry & exit ANPR was 3 hrs 22 mins. Ticket was for 3 hrs.

    I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
    • BREACH OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012 (POFA)
    • NO GRACE PERIOD GIVEN
    • NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
    • BREACH OF EQUALITY ACT 2010
    • MISLEADING, POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    • THE SIGNS FAIL TO TRANSPARENTLY WARN DRIVERS OF WHAT THE ANPR DATA WILL BE USED FOR
    • ANPR AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS BREACH
    • NO KEEPER LIABILITY



    • BREACH OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012-
      I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge.

      Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

      ''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

      Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.


      Figure 1: Euro Car Parks’ main car park sign on the West Street CP

      The image in figure 1 shows the main entrance sign. Note this was taken at a later date on foot standing on the pavement, wheras it would normally be approached from the left hand side of the road turning right, so some considerable distance away. It is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways:

      * It is high on a pole, making it difficult to read. Far above the height of a driver or pedestrian.

      * There is a huge amount of text to be read.

      * This text is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background.


      * The bottom sign is angled away so a driver cannot read it from the angle of approach.

      * It would be a safety hazard for the driver to strain to read any of the wording on these 2 signs as they approached the entrance.

      The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix B) sets the requirements for entrance
      signs. What is disputed are other requirements the BPA sets in Appendix B, specifically:

      1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

      2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times…

      In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case
      is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead, nor is it readable and understandable at all times due to height, angle and text size.
    • NO GRACE PERIOD GIVEN-
      BPA CoP Clause 13.2 - If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
      BPA CoP Clause 13.4 - You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

      The driver purchased a ticket for £3.00 for 3 hours as confirmed by ECP. The departure is in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice. ECP is calculating the length of stay based on the time spent in the car park between the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) entrance and exit cameras being triggered. However the driver based their stay on the amount paid for and shown on the ticket. Reviewing the signage on the car park in photos attached, it is not clear that the length of stay is calculated by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras rather than that stated on the ticket.

      Please consider the time needed at the start, before even finding a space, to arrive, drive round looking for a suitable parking bay allowing access for a larger vehicle and children, then prepare to get everyone safely out of the car, get to the pay station, queue behind others, then read the signage, decide to accept /decline the legible T&C’s, and make payment. There was also the fact there was also a baby and toddler so there was equipment (pram ,etc.) that also needed to be unloaded and (once back to the car) repeat this loading and strapping in of both children, before leaving slowly through a very busy and narrow car park with queuing traffic, past pedestrians, and manoeuvring vehicles. In addition to this, the small size of the spaces makes it extremely difficult to carry out these tasks in a timely manner.

      Just two minutes over the minimum that operators must allow for able bodied people, is not a contravention by any reasonable interpretation. The BPA agrees:


      ''Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods

      Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

      “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

      “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
      ''
    • 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).

      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
    • BREACH OF EQUALITY ACT 2010-
      One of the passengers was required to urgently breastfeed her baby prior to leaving the car park. Your right to breastfeed in public is covered by The Equality Act 2010 which states “A business cannot discriminate against mothers who are breastfeeding a child of any age”
      This is not merely mitigating circumstances; it is a fact of breastfeeding law.
      There is also no excuse to be heard from an operator if they say: ''it's not discrimination because we didn't know the passenger was breastfeeding a baby”. Also under the EA, discriminating against someone because they are with a breastfeeding mother is also prohibited, so companions of breastfeeding mothers who are also treated unfairly may have a claim too. It should also be highlighted that the driver had exited the space of the car park thus allowing a new paying customer to enter and obtain a ticket if required. Therefore no income loss can be claimed.
      Further down this appeal I will mention that the signage was not clear to advise of ANPR cameras onsite or to advise that the relevance of these was to determine the ticket length of stay from entry and exit based on the images. Therefore only the duration of parking in a marked bay was known to be required for the length of ticket.
      The operator is guilty of indirect discrimination at the point of issuing the PCN.
    • MISLEADING, POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE-
      Despite the fact that I am not the driver, I have reviewed the photos of the signage both at entry to the car park and the tariff signage and there is no mention to ANPR specifically. What is does tell me is that the Car Park is “Camera Controlled” To any driver at quick glance whilst being in a moving vehicle into the car park, prior to any driver being made aware of the alternative reason for the cameras, is that actually their main purpose is to protect and serve customers, the public safety of individuals and the safety of your vehicle whilst parked on their grounds. There is no other signage leading you to think otherwise prior to them taking your vehicle registration photo upon entry without your knowledge.


    The sign is a mass of confusing and contradictory words. Large parts of the sign are in blue on yellow, a combination warned against by the BPA CoP as hard to read. The charge, in case you did not spot it, is £85 hidden in the small print at the bottom of the sign.


    On the signage, the two contraventions listed under the words:

    ''Failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £85 PCN (£50 if paid within 14 days of issue)'' are nothing to do with any overstay which makes the signage ambiguous. 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, where there was no quantifiable tariff.



    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. 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.

    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, there is one sign indicating a tariff (at the pay station) and the hourly rate is the only salient figure. The wording is 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 in a busy car park such as the one in question.



    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this carpark 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:



    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.


    .
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 23rd Feb 19, 2:37 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    part 2
    Part 2 ( as wouldn't let me load in one go, too many words!) The bullet point numbers haven't copied over from word but are on my copy.


    THE SIGNS FAIL TO TRANSPARENTLY WARN DRIVERS OF WHAT THE ANPR DATA WILL BE USED FOR, WHICH BREACHES THE BPA CoP AND THE CPUTRs DUE TO INHERENT FAILURE TO INDICATE THE ‘COMMERCIAL INTENT’ OF THE CAMERAS-

    Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP) advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The CoP requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside the car park.

    It is not clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.
    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

    This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 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.

    and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.






    Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

    Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
    (a) the commercial practice omits material information,
    (b) the commercial practice hides material information,
    (c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
    (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
    and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
    It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park.

    A camera icon suggests merely that CCTV is in operation for security within the car park, and in fact the signs say the site is patrolled, so the driver would expect the 'expiry' time on the parking ticket to be the time to return to the car. Anyone returning to a car in time, going by the ticket, would consider they had complied with the rules of this car park, even if they then had to spend minutes sorting out and loading/strapping the baby, buggy, and the needs of all other passengers, then carefully driving out.







    • ANPR AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS BREACH of the BPA Code of Practice and ICO Code of Practice rules-
      This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor.

      Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with such rules, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

      i) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

      ii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers, disabled people and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and

      iii) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and

      iv) Lack of the Privacy Notice required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held.


      The BPA CoP says at paragraph 21.4:

      It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
      process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
      • be registered with the Information Commissioner
      • keep to the Data Protection Act
      • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
      follow the guidelines from the Information
      Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and
      ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
      data such as vehicle registration marks.



      BPA CoP Clause 21.5 - We have an expectation that when Operators are using cameras to manage parking, they will sign up to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice and adopt the Guiding Principles which are detailed in the Code.



    • Guiding Principles 2.6 System operators should adopt the following 12 guiding principles: (Only relevant ones are highlighted below)


    3.There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible, including a published contact point for access to information and complaints


    5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in place before a surveillance camera system is used, and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them.



    This operator has ignored the surveillance camera rules and if they disagree they are put to strict proof of (i) to (iv) above.










    • NO KEEPER LIABILITY- The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge-
      As a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.
      As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my given 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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.

      This is the only evidence supplied to me as keeper appellant by Euro Car Parks, an image purporting to be of a notice within the plot of land in question. The image is not date stamped or independently verified for its authenticity. Please note that there is no visible indication of the liability of any party, least of all the registered keeper of any vehicle:

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

      Understanding keeper liability
      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 reasonable presumption 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

      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.''



      It is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 23rd Feb 19, 2:41 PM
    • 4,803 Posts
    • 4,282 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    3) Should I include GPEOL as on the Popla Appeal results thread this seems to have the biggest wins, but I couldn't find any text regarding adding this one to understand what its for.
    No, this is an old argument and carries no weight now.
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 23rd Feb 19, 4:05 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Thx. How does my letter look? Want to send it tonight as due by tomorrow. X
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 24th Feb 19, 1:46 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Is my BREACH OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012 section of my letter correct or strong enough? This is the only section I struggled with.
    Thx
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Feb 19, 12:25 AM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am finding the order of points in your draft is very jumbled. Makes it lack flow.

    Points about signs should follow each other, as should points about POFA and the individual not being identified.

    And where you talk about grace periods it might have been better to have the Equality Act breastfeeding point above that, so the Assessor knows that the extra few minutes are accounted for.
    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
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 9th Mar 19, 9:17 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Timings
    How long does ECP have to respond to popla? Can’t see any timescales on their website.
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 20th Mar 19, 1:41 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    So I have just submitted by 2000 character response to Operator via Popla. How long do Popla now have to review all information and make a decision please?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 20th Mar 19, 2:22 PM
    • 22,461 Posts
    • 28,477 Thanks
    Redx
    as long as they like, there is no fixed timescale
    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
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 16th May 19, 7:36 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Update: result was Unsucessfull ☹️ I’ll post response on Popla results page.
    Livid hot they get away with ripping people off. Popla or the assessor must be getting a back hander.
    ��
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 19, 8:14 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    But you don't pay when you lose at POPLA v ECP, you know.

    You do realise that?

    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
    • Fairy1808
    • By Fairy1808 18th May 19, 7:16 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Fairy1808
    Yeah I know but typical husband doesn’t want the stress of letters for 6 yrs so sure he’s gonna pay it behind my back. ��
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th May 19, 1:48 AM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Daft, if you don't mind me saying so. Does he pay Nigerian email scammers, too?
    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

2,290Posts Today

6,710Users online

Martin's Twitter