Ital small print |
Ital small print |
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:26
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
Should you remain dissatisfied with this decision, or have additional evidence, you may further your appeal to the Appeals Service within 28 days of receiving your rejection letter. Appeals may be submitted online at www.asparking.co.uk or by post at:
Appeals Service (Parking) PO Box 267 Petersfield GU32 9FH You’ll be issued with a 10 digit verification code, which you must use with your appeal to the Appeals Service. This is shown at the top of your rejection letter. The Appeals Service process does not apply in Scotland or to PN’s (Penalty Notices) received at a railway station car park. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 18:39
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
my words
the non display of a ticket this is covered primarily by byelaw 14 (2)(ii) and (3). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...way-byelaws.pdf |
|
|
Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 21:38
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
It could be covered by 14(2)(ii) but not 14(3) which is the failure to make payment
The offence, however, would still be described wrongly It's leaving the vehicle otherwise than in accordance..... Failure to display is the action that gave rise to the offence, not the offence itself This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 21:39 |
|
|
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:22
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I'd disagree with that, 14(2)ii refers to the leaving or placing of the vehicle, its stretch to say that includes leaving a piece of paper in the window, especially as the initial placing and leaving occurred before you could possible display anyway, making every P&D driver guilty before they can even obtain a ticket.
though that response was pretty predictable. 14(3) - nope, not a chance. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 12:55
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
well I think we can safely say that ITALs interpretation of bylaws will cause 90% of all appeals to fail
, although indigos contract forbids court action , filling in the ital appeal form and giving full information , inc your DOB , with no box to tick saying "keeper" , may result in the bypassing of KODOE and court papers from ital debt prosecution arriving thru your door shortly afterwards |
|
|
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 21:54
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
Although I doubt ITAL will actually prosecute (I recall Southeastern claiming in threatening letters to prosecute "100% of non-payers" in relation to fake byelaw 14 penalties when FoIA statistics showed that they actually prosecuted 0%), I tend to agree with the emerging consensus on the MSE forum that it might be best treating them like the "I"PC and not appealing to them at all, on the basis that an appeal rejection is virtually guaranteed.
In my view, the positives of making a small movement towards a time out are outweighed by the negatives of, at least potentially, giving valuable information away, potentially increasing rather than decreasing the (very small, in my opinion) risk of prosecution, or indeed the slightly larger risk of a PPC changing its mind, claiming what it previously described as "statutory byelaw penalties" were actually contractual charges after all, and bringing a MCOL claim on that basis. I recall that there was one case on the forum where a PPC did just this in transforming a hitherto (claimed) statutory penalty into a "contractual charge", and managed to (wrongly, in the opinion of a retired barrister) persuade an district judge to agree with them and to award them every penny asked for. |
|
|
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 22:47
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
yup its worrying that the address that you send your appeal to , belongs to https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...mp;postcount=24 (easier to link)
and that they consider non display as bylaw 14 xxxxx , |
|
|
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 10:33
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
In the active thread where an appeal went to ITAL, it was accepted
It doesn't provide much useful information because ZZPS had failed to submit an evidence pack in time We don't therefore know what would happen with a contested appeal Isn't there a thread where ITAL admitted that it doesn't prosecute Byelaw 14 Notices ? Its FAQ imply that it doesn't conduct any prosecutions but refers the cases back to the rail companies This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 10:38 |
|
|
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 11:14
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
In the active thread where an appeal went to ITAL, it was accepted It doesn't provide much useful information because ZZPS had failed to submit an evidence pack in time We don't therefore know what would happen with a contested appeal Isn't there a thread where ITAL admitted that it doesn't prosecute Byelaw 14 Notices ? Its FAQ imply that it doesn't conduct any prosecutions but refers the cases back to the rail companies run that by me again "but refers the cases back to the rail companies" , due to KODOE , the TOC have not been privy to any info from indigo (the company that issued the ticket and you are appealing against) so after passing this to the TOC , the TOC then asks the ital group to instigate a prosecution , just like the do every day for fare evasion or the TOC starts it themselves |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 06:39 |