PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

714 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 23:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


No in fact it's an IPC firm, so wait for the Notice to Keeper to arrive next month, instead. Then send a registered keeper appeal, which won't work but it's not meant to.

The 'day 26' tactic is only for windscreen PCNs from BPA member firms where there is a reasonably fair & independent 2nd stage appeal, POPLA.

You will not get this - the IPC run a kangaroo court effort called the IAS, which is neither fair nor independent by all accounts seen online (never seen a decent decision from them, ever). IAS must NOT be tried.

Please don't ask what happens next, I can't stand the ''what's the next step?'' question re IPC firm scam PCNs. You only need to read any other IPC thread on here or on MSE to know to come back if ever they try court. That is the stage where IPC member fake PCNs are beatable.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427581 · Replies: 5 · Views: 55

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 23:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


No UKCPM PCN is valid. IMHO they are all a scam, and defendable when they try court later, and yours will be too.

Yes that's the NTK. The first letter (apart from a reply to an early appeal to a case with a windscreen PCN) is ALWAYS the NTK, no matter what they call it.

All very pointless but send a single dispute stating that a car shown on unidentifiable double yellow lines is not obstructive parking and the driver was loading/unloading to adjacent premises, which is not parking. In any case, if they intend to ban parking & loading completely, they should properly mark the area with kerb blips or alternatively, red route lines, because double yellow lines alone do not have the meaning UKCPM seem to think they do.

And even if they did mark the area better, they'd also need to ensure their signs are lit in hours of darkness (which they are not, the terms are unreadable in the dark), and even then could not run a claim pretending that a ban on their own daft interpretation of 'obstructive parking' can be dressed up as if it was a breach of contract. Clearly the two things (prohibiting stopping, yet allowing it at a price) are mutually exclusive and merely an attempt to make money out of what can only be (at best) a matter of trespass for a landowner to pursue.

Then add that the driver was not a trespasser because (what?) ...were they unloading something to their own flat, and do they have implied easements and rights of way, or express rights to park/unload or a right to peaceful enjoyment of, and a right of access to, their property in their lease or tenancy agreement?

This last bit is important, so tell us more about whose flat that is and why the car stopped there.

And read this case to see what's what:

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/...Homeguard-2016-

By the way, the appeal will NOT WORK, and DO NOT try IAS stage (don't ask). The first appeal is to set the scene to win your case next year when the doomed idiots try to sue you.

HTH

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427579 · Replies: 1 · Views: 30

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 23:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Do you mean you have already submitted word for word, those comments on the evidence (it's not an appeal at this stage)?

writing about GPEOL helps no-one. Reading old threads helps no-one either, and just confuses you and new readers.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427574 · Replies: 79 · Views: 2,814

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 23:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


The keeper of the car should appeal - WITHOUT IMPLYING IN ANY WORDS, WHO WAS DRIVING! - stating that two of the occupants of the car meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 and were certainly entitled to use that bay. One person is 88 with heart failure and another is 71 with spinal stenosis, both with blue badges, both of which are hereby attached (copies) to prove the right to use the concession, which is a right in law, no BB needed and certainly no charge is allowed for using such a bay.

State that VCS now know about the disabilities of the two occupants of the car and cannot proceed to court because this would breach the Equality Act, and a penalty for using a disabled provision would be illegal, and unconscionable in that regard.

DO NOT SAY 'MY PASSENGERS' OR ANY SUCH WORDS!

You URGENTLY need to edit your first post which says 'my' and 'I'. Nonono, Parking firms read this forum.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427573 · Replies: 5 · Views: 62

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 23:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Check the post cunningly hidden in READ THIS FIRST - FAQS':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427570 · Replies: 13 · Views: 44

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 23:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You need to get the Claimant's name right in the draft order. There is no 's' on the end.

QUOTE
One question I have is whether I need to provide supporting evidence with the N244 or just at the hearing (if the court agree to holding one)?
No evidence with this WS and draft order, no, that comes later at the hearing(s).

Remove this, and NEVER argue 'no loss' or pre-estimate of loss in a parking case:

QUOTE
2.5.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.



This point needs re-wording as it makes little sense. How do you know which location it relates to, and what do you mean about a 'fee for parking' (rare for CEL)? This reads as if you are saying it was a PDT machine car park, so do you know that? Surely the point should simply say you doubt the Claimant's terms on signage were clear, and unlike the Beavis case, you do not believe any driver of your car breached any clearly displayed terms or agreed to pay a 3 figure sum, and even though you have no idea of the circumstances, there cannot have been a 'parking charge' of over £300 in any case because the Claimant is a BPA member where the maximum ceiling is £100.

QUOTE
2.5.3. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the driver. There the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the driver to Civil Enforcement Ltd.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427569 · Replies: 1 · Views: 25

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 22:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Yes submit that on the POPLA portal. I would not mention Keith Griffiths/the contract.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427566 · Replies: 76 · Views: 1,596

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 22:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You need to show us your draft POPLA appeal, including embedded photos of the signs as they were (if you haven't got them, the FB group will). And including a screenshot of the FB group and also of Gemma Dorans' email, which is not something Smart will want POPLA to see.

Show us your word document with all of that in it, using the usual Smart Parking POPLA template appeal wording you find when you Google those words (look for recent forum posts from here and MSE in the top results and see what a winning POPLA appeal looks like. You will just have to remove the POFA 2012 winning point, as you can't use it as driver.

NEVER AGAIN tell a private parking firm who was driving, next time you or a family member get one of these scam PCNs
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427565 · Replies: 13 · Views: 44

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 22:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


The Judge sounds biased, clueless and hopeless and I would be concerned, but not concerned enough to suggest a lay rep unless it's bargepole or Lamilad.

NO-ONE ELSE, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS ALREADY.

She has also handed them a chance to get their ducks in a row, which is shocking.

QUOTE
If the judge decided to adjourn there would be no award of costs (the £95).
There was in this case too, which was also at Liverpool so it must be normal for there:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017...2-years-of.html

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427562 · Replies: 42 · Views: 3,016

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 22:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
They mention on page 2 they reserve the right to under POFA to come after the registered keeper? Does that still not meet with 8(2)f or 9(2)?

Of course not! You've seen the mandatory wording in 8(2)f and 9(2)f about ''if, after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after...'' blah blah!

They can't just mention the POFA on page one and then throw in a right to come after the registered keeper on page 2!

They also issue a hybrid PCN which was neither one thing nor the other but was CERTAINLY a 'Notice to Driver' (because it was a notice to the driver!) in which case they were unable to obtain the rk data and issue a Notice to Keeper by post until day 29 at the earliest. Same as VCS cases, they make it up as they go along.

That appeal is fine and the case will be won at POPLA on 'no keeper liability'.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427556 · Replies: 17 · Views: 97

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 22:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Gemma Dorans is the only other person apart from Steve Clark at the BPA who I believe has an honest agenda to properly investigate complaints, and she does get things done.

Interesting about a facebook group set up to deal with this scam but WHY has someone not actually told the victims to appeal as keeper and kill all of these off easily? So simple.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427554 · Replies: 13 · Views: 44

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 22:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (rich2568 @ Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 01:16) *
Was Pre Estimate of Loss squashed due to the Beavis ruling?


Yes.


QUOTE
Is there an opportunity to present arguments against PEOL?


NO.

You are reading old stuff and I have no idea why the comments haven't been submitted. Can we stop this on MSE and here, it's pointless.

I already gave you the comments to submit in post #63, word for word. You only had 6 days.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427551 · Replies: 79 · Views: 2,814

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 21:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Doesn't matter yet, but while waiting for the POPLA code I would go and get more signage pics to make a nice, illustrated and persuasive POPLA appeal in November.

INTIMATION NOTICE made me laugh. What a pile of complete and utter drivel.

Not only does it read at first glance as IMITATION NOTICE (!) but the word intimation has a vague meaning that can mean 'notice'. So it actually says 'NOTICE NOTICE'!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427530 · Replies: 17 · Views: 97

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 21:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Looks fine. This will be won at POPLA as long as she knows NOT to say who was driving in any words, any appeal, no implying it by talking about 'my' permit.

No need for any signature as the non compliant NTK says an appeal can be lodged by email. But yes, the keeper's name goes at the end (they already have the keeper's name).

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427523 · Replies: 17 · Views: 97

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 20:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


How do you know you were a minute over? We've seen ANPR cameras not synchronised/correct before now, proven wrong by people with an iPhone, with Google location.

Do you have that app? Any proof of how long the car was really there? Don't believe the 11 mins and don't let POPLA think you believe it.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427516 · Replies: 13 · Views: 44

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 20:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Evidence is key, really go to an effort to gather info from the friend about their right to park/visitors rights and include your pictures, and a contents page for the Judge.

A copy of it all also goes to Gladstones, but that can be emailed. Then print out the sent item email, to PROVE it was all sent to Gladstones in case their rep lies on the day.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427514 · Replies: 56 · Views: 1,480

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 20:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You need to read example POPLA appeals and show us the draft first.

Dreadful to hear you've already gone and thrown in the bin the 100% winning appeal point v Smart Parking. What a shame, never do that again. Now it's a bit harder!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427509 · Replies: 13 · Views: 44

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 20:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Ive had a weekend off due to a chronic illness i suffer with but re done the letter now. I am going to speak to the head nurse tomorrow in the ward and discuss the parking issue moving forwards with her.


Good.

Have quotes from the NHS Car Parking Principles handy; it's not something I'd expect a Head Nurse to have to know about so it will be up to YOU to point out the Government policy.

And when posting an appeal, use ordinary 1st class post, address it to a specific person or Department (appeals?) and go to the local PO and ask for a FREE certificate of posting.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427504 · Replies: 22 · Views: 448

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Today, 20:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Would the appeal base itself on the fact the pictures cannot prove or disprove the permit was on/or not on show?

Nope, the appeal would be from the registered keeper, pointing out that there can be no keeper liability. No talking about who parked, or ''my permit''.

Come back at POPLA stage and the keeper wins it.

Shocking to see a BPA scumbag copying the fake PCNs on windscreens that are not a PCN at all, like VCS 'myparkingcharge' cases.

Luckily, that NTK is hopelessly non compliant, it neither meets para 8 nor para 9 wording from Schedule 4 of the POFA. No 8(2)f or 9(2)f warning, and other words also missing.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427499 · Replies: 17 · Views: 97

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Yes, do both!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427229 · Replies: 31 · Views: 1,410

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


No. This doesn't make much sense but STILL puts the keeper as the person at Reception! Stop trying to say this, remove it:

QUOTE
The keeper did realise that there were disability concessions on site only realising that maybe you have to provide the Blue Badge after getting asked by staff in reception, but they didn’t.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427228 · Replies: 76 · Views: 1,596

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Nononnono. Already said: no doing IAS, stop setting yourselves up for a fall which will make you feel despondent and wrOngly believe that you have no case.

STOP!

Did anyone actually read the links I gave you and learn who you are dealing with in PCM?

Did anyone put in a ROBUST COMPLAINT about them?

Come back at court stage later, where PCM are then beatable at no risk to your credit.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427227 · Replies: 16 · Views: 201

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Looks like you have copied an irrelevant and old defence from at least a year ago.

I'd start again, and look at other BW Legal Defences CURRENTLY being worked on this month. Much more relevant.

Here is one someone has put together on MSE, albeit he/she has described themselves as the registered hirer (no such thing):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5911678

Do you really believe that a regular user of that car park didn't buy a ticket one day?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427226 · Replies: 6 · Views: 144

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Yes, use what nosferatu1001 suggested. Don't be scared of talking about the office teaboy, as it really is that bad!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427225 · Replies: 18 · Views: 351

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,018
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Friend owns freehold house so I don't know where the rights of access to the private road would be - probably in some conveyance. She has her own space outside her house where her car was already parked.


Then can the friend provide a signed/dated WS to accompany yours, saying she owns the adjacent freehold house and as well as a demised parking space, she has rights of way to pass and re-pass to access her house, and that on xx/xx/xx (date) her friend the Defendant parked with her full permission, behind the cars parked on the driveway. And can the friend add that she no longer lives there but that she is aware that residents' peaceful enjoyment of their properties was ruined by this predatory parking firm who had no agenda to uphold the residents' comfort and use of the property, and were widely considered to be causing a private nuisance to the landowners, freeholders and leaseholders and issued PCNs on any old excuse, with no clarity as to the boundaries where they could or could not operate and no consent from freeholders. People like herself had rights of way and easements and the Claimant in this case paid no regard to the primacy of contract arising from such rights and easements.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427196 · Replies: 31 · Views: 1,410

714 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 22nd October 2018 - 23:54
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.