PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PPS ... invoice?
J4G3D
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 19:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



Hi again wonderful people of the forum.

My good friend has received a invoice from a company called PPS for the sum of £60.

They claim that the car was not parked in a bay at a tesco express car park at 5.32pm on a Sunday.

The car actually wasn't parked in a bay, but it was parked in a position that did not block anyone.

Anyway, is this another invoice from a private company?

Should I tell my friend to ignore it or can he send the bellow letter which I sent to the parking eye a few months ago (with success)

I am 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 PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. 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. 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 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.''
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 19:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
J4G3D
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 11:43
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



They've finally got back with a decision and they've rejected the appeal on the grounds that they believe the lighting/signage/bay markings and everything else is sufficient.

I really thought this was going to go in my friends favour, because the signage IMO is atrocious, despite being of adequate size, they're erected around the car parking in between tesco offer signs, which are of the same height and size as well. So its very confusing, thats without mentioning the following:

The entrance signage is minuscule:

https://imgur.com/a/UfMEZLZ

The first noticeable signage doesn't indicate any t&c's apply

https://imgur.com/a/TeZJcYI

The first signage in the car park which shows restrictions is located on a box area (illegal to stop on):

https://imgur.com/a/9OpqnbO

The lighting is not the great either at the exact time of the parking complaint, the parking attendant even had his flash on.

All was rejected.
Full decision here: https://www.scribd.com/document/399025025/Document-rtf

Does anyone know the next best step? or is it a case of

1. Paying it.
2. Letting it go to court.

Thanks

This post has been edited by J4G3D: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 11:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 12:24
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Dont host at another site
Jsut copy and paste, ADDING CARRRIAGE RETURNs, the decision.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 11:43
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



The appellant has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event, as such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Tesco Customer Car Park… If your vehicle remains in this car park or you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice… Vehicles must be parked within marked bays”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle at 17:32. As the vehicle was not parked within marked bays the PCN has been issued.

The appellant’s case is as follows:
• The road markings are not easily visible.
• The area is not lit during darker periods.
• The signage does not comply with the BPA code of practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with the driver.
• The vehicle was not parked causing obstruction.
• No valid contract with landowner.
• The amount demanded is not a genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

As evidence to support their appeal they have provided photographs of the signage. In their response to the operator’s evidence the appellant says it was not daylight, the images have been taken using the flash on their camera, which would not be required if it was daylight. They say image: 461401 shows a true picture of the lighting at that time of the day, which clearly shows it being rather dark. The appellant says the vehicle was not parked in front of signage it was parked close to a sign. The appellant says they now consider the charge is reasonable and have withdrawn their grounds of appeal that the amount demanded is not a genuine Pre-estimate of loss. I will therefore not address this point any further. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue PCN’s on the land and says there is no valid contract with the landowner. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided an authorisation document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. In this case it is important to consider if the signage on site is in line with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 18. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” While I note that the appellant says that the bay markings were not easily visible and the area is not well lit. I consider the signage and bay markings would be sufficiently visible and having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. While I note that the appellant says the vehicle was not causing an obstruction the PCN was issued because their vehicle was not parked in a designated area, within marked bays. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant was not parked in a designated area, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

This post has been edited by J4G3D: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 23:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 11:52
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



That hurts my eyes! Can you split it into paragraphs please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 11:53
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



What part of "add carriage returns" was so tricky? smile.gif

I and others will not try to read that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 23:42
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 12:53) *
What part of "add carriage returns" was so tricky? smile.gif

I and others will not try to read that.


Just pasting it exactly as It was displayed on popla. I've read it through Okay, and its not even my issue.

Not got the time to split it all up, the ticket isn't for me, done all this work for my friend already. I've split the first section up but too busy to mess around splitting up poplas replies to the points outlined.

Think the easiest option is to just pay it. It is all too confusing and time consuming.

They win. And popla is probably in it with them.

Lesson learnt for him and myself. Don't get a ticket in this day and age as you cannot get out of it. laugh.gif

This post has been edited by J4G3D: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 23:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 09:56
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I;m sorry if asking you to spend 5 minutes doing somethign youve had FOUR PAGES of help on is so much effort
Of course you can "get out of it", it just requires a little bit of effort.

By paying you allow them to chase people who cannot aford to pay, or who will go without food or heatr to do so. Well done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:08
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 10:56) *
I;m sorry if asking you to spend 5 minutes doing somethign youve had FOUR PAGES of help on is so much effort
Of course you can "get out of it", it just requires a little bit of effort.

By paying you allow them to chase people who cannot aford to pay, or who will go without food or heatr to do so. Well done.


This isn't my issue as much as it isn't your issue. I read it through OK. Why can't you spend 5 minutes reading it through or rearranging it to help? Could my friend reply to popla stating that he cannot spend 5 minutes rearranging their reply because its too much hassle?

Also driving is a luxury, im sure if people can afford to own a car, pay tax, pay insurance that they can afford to pay for a parking fine. If not, they should sell the car and use the money to pay for food and heating and use a bus?

My friend has a family with 4 kids, he cannot afford to risk it going to court, the hassle and stress it will cause. He's already bald and lost his mother and father recently. He's the type to just pay it, but he didn't originally pay it as he couldn't afford it and thought the ticket wasn't justified. He scrapes by in life as well.

Thanks to those that spent minutes replying in here though. But this ones a loss.

Could a mod please close this thread?

This post has been edited by J4G3D: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 12:57
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) Because I dont want to
2) Because its not my issue, and usually when people ask for help - for themselves or others - being asked to do a SIMPLE task when posting something so it follows the rules of English isnt too much to ask.
3) They could do, but POPLA wont care, same as I dont any longer

If driving is a luxury then motability would not exist...whoops, theres your argument, flying out the window on fire....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:59
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 13:57) *
1) Because I dont want to
2) Because its not my issue, and usually when people ask for help - for themselves or others - being asked to do a SIMPLE task when posting something so it follows the rules of English isnt too much to ask.
3) They could do, but POPLA wont care, same as I dont any longer

If driving is a luxury then motability would not exist...whoops, theres your argument, flying out the window on fire....


Motability? sounds like something for disabled people. Do you mean motoring?

Like I said, driving is a luxury and not a necessity. Since other forms of transport can get you from A to B when needed. Bus/Taxi/Bike/Walk/Train.

Thanks again for your valuable input though. Much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 14:09
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Wow, you didnt even google it...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motability

No, I meant what I wrote. Quite an expensive channel to sell through, for us as a manufacturer, but a worthy one

I think you will find it is defined as a necessity for some. I suggest you step away from that high horse...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:26
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:09) *
Wow, you didnt even google it...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motability

No, I meant what I wrote. Quite an expensive channel to sell through, for us as a manufacturer, but a worthy one

I think you will find it is defined as a necessity for some. I suggest you step away from that high horse...


I guess I don't have the time to google words. Especially since I no longer need advice and you already noted that you was no longer willing to help.

If I had 4.77 posts per day I'd probably have the time.

If I find the time on here i'll probably advise everyone to pay their fine.

Thanks again.

This post has been edited by J4G3D: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 16:29
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Ah, so you'll work against peoples interests?
Bye.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:13
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As a Blue Badge holder I regard my car as a neccesity. Don't know how I'd manage without it. And its not motability, though is ex motability car.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 18:10
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 18:13) *
As a Blue Badge holder I regard my car as a neccesity. Don't know how I'd manage without it. And its not motability, though is ex motability car.


That is fine, but buses and taxis have been adapted for those with a disability. I think a lot of people that fall in that category could use them without a problem, and they do without a problem. Some people don't have a driving license and they cope fine. I think we've grown to WANT a vehicle to make life easier. But we can all still get from A to B using public transport, albeit a bit more of a faff..ie.. walking to a bus stop..etc.

But, my argument is, if you can drive a car, pay tax, insurance, mot, servicing, maintenance..etc..etc. A £35 parking invoice should be ok.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 01:20
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



And those at £100?
You've got no idea, and won't listen to those telling you otherwise

Please, don't stick around if you're really going to suggest people pay these parasites!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4G3D
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 11:19
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 159
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Member No.: 9,285



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 02:20) *
And those at £100?
You've got no idea, and won't listen to those telling you otherwise

Please, don't stick around if you're really going to suggest people pay these parasites!

Its never £100 though is it. Its at a reduced rate to start with. Pay it at this stage and its hardly denting the pocket if you can afford to drive.

I don't think they're parasites. They've been employed by the landowner to stop people parking illegally. How many times have you been at a supermarket or likewise and customer service have gone on the loud speaker asking someone to move their car? it happens often, I think rules are needed in car parks. Without a doubt. I would do the exact same, especially if people were parking in my car park that weren't customers.

Your mentality is to try get out of any ticket or invoice possible, whether theres a valid reason or not.

My friend wasn't parked in a marked bay. Yes it was getting dark and no the signage wasn't lit up, but its still his fault and nobody else's as he knows that car park. I wouldn't of done what he did because im usually very wary where I park nowadays.

Show me an example on here of someone failing at popla, but winning at court............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 11:26
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



QUOTE (J4G3D @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 18:10) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 18:13) *
As a Blue Badge holder I regard my car as a neccesity. Don't know how I'd manage without it. And its not motability, though is ex motability car.


That is fine, but buses and taxis have been adapted for those with a disability. I think a lot of people that fall in that category could use them without a problem, and they do without a problem. Some people don't have a driving license and they cope fine. I think we've grown to WANT a vehicle to make life easier. But we can all still get from A to B using public transport, albeit a bit more of a faff..ie.. walking to a bus stop..etc.

But, my argument is, if you can drive a car, pay tax, insurance, mot, servicing, maintenance..etc..etc. A £35 parking invoice should be ok.


I know that this should be in the flame pit but there are problems in your statement, like walking to a bus stop. The relevant bit is walking. And what happens at the other end?

Probably not a lot of experience of life with the OP, or very selfish.

The reason we asked that you paragraph the POPLA response is that it takes time to go through it that format. When those that help are looking through 40 or 50 threads trying to help others on this and other forums why such we make an effort when there are others that appreciate the work done. for them all you have to handle is this one thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 23:19
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Basically - tosser who's been shown to be one, and now can't back down
bored now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 08:50
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
They've been employed by the landowner to stop people parking illegally.

No parking company is 'employed', they offer their 'services' free, provided they take all the penalty money.

Parking badly, overstaying, etc on private land is not 'illegal'.

QUOTE
How many times have you been at a supermarket or likewise and customer service have gone on the loud speaker asking someone to move their car?

As 90% of retail car parks are 'managed' by ANPR camera, how does that prevent badly positioned/obstructive parking?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:18
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here