PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Incorrectly identified as driver - POPLA rejection
Planner_21
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 09:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 4 Oct 2007
From: London
Member No.: 14,246



Having had to defend a second parking ticket from ukpc in as many months, I submitted the appeal with neutral language and never received the NTK.

As such when ukpc rejected my appeal, when I moved onto the popla stage I invoked POFA 2012.

For this, their rejection said:

"The conditions within POFA 2012 would only be applicable if the operator was attempting to transfer liability of the PCN from the driver to the keeper. However, I am satisfied that the appellant has identified himself as the driver".

My original wording said to UKPC "The alleged contravention did not occur. The vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact I have a ticket for the period in question. Please see attached evidence of the parking ticket as proof of this claim.

Nonetheless, i wasn't the driver. So should i pay up their £100 or wait for them to take me to court? As i wasn't the driver what's my legal position?

This post has been edited by Planner_21: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 12:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 22)
Advertisement
post Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 09:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 01:44
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That phrase is misinterpreted a lot more often than it's used correctly
How can the failure of a rule prove that it's correct ?

The word "prove" means "test" as in proof testing a crane or pressure vessel
Subjecting it to a load that exceeds what it will experience in service and checking that it's undamaged

It's the (apparent) exception that tests the rule
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 21:52
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 01:44) *
That phrase is misinterpreted a lot more often than it's used correctly
How can the failure of a rule prove that it's correct ?

The word "prove" means "test" as in proof testing a crane or pressure vessel
Subjecting it to a load that exceeds what it will experience in service and checking that it's undamaged

It's the (apparent) exception that tests the rule

It is an idiom. It is the rarity of the exception that "proves" the existence of the rule. It is not meant to be taken literally, Redivi (btw, what was your old name, and why did you change it?)...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 22:07
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Are you a Latin scholar ?

I lost my password and the Forum no longer sends the reset to Hotmail accounts

Provided the opportunity to take a break from the Forum for a few months while a house move was underway

This post has been edited by Redivi: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 22:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 04:31
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