PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCM Windscreen Ticket Parked Outside Block Of Flats
snowman816
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 07:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 5 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,633



Hi

I wanted to find out if there were any grounds for appeal for the following which was received



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 07:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 08:02
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,202
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



Signs are forbidding. There is no offer to park. Therefore you cannot have entered into or breached any kind of contract. You have trespassed, and only the landowner can seek remedy for that.

An appeal based on that will be rejected, but who cares? You won't be paying a penny.

DO NOT reveal who the driver was in any communication. The ticket does not conform to POFA (unless there is POFA info on the back), so there is no keeper liability. They can only pursue the driver, and you won't be saying who that was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 08:43
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Are you an owner? Have you read this? especially Jopson v Homeguard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
snowman816
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 07:26
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 5 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,633



QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 09:02) *
Signs are forbidding. There is no offer to park. Therefore you cannot have entered into or breached any kind of contract. You have trespassed, and only the landowner can seek remedy for that.

An appeal based on that will be rejected, but who cares? You won't be paying a penny.

DO NOT reveal who the driver was in any communication. The ticket does not conform to POFA (unless there is POFA info on the back), so there is no keeper liability. They can only pursue the driver, and you won't be saying who that was.



Thanks for reply, there is details on how to pay on the back (let me know if should upload this)

Would I make an appeal stating I am the RK not the driver when they send through further correspondence via post?

QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 09:43) *
Are you an owner? Have you read this? especially Jopson v Homeguard.



Interesting, I manage a few of the properties in the block and was there to drop some keys off so not sure if that could still warrant parking there
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 08:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So with a windscreen ticket you appeal as the keeper who has been handed the windscreen ticket so that it arrives on about day 26 after the event. You are not liable, the signs are forbidding and cannot possibly create a contract, only the landowner can take action for trespass and you have the right to park there.

The intention is to make them not apply to the DVLA for your details or not send a Notice to Keeper. EIther is a failure of POFA and they cannot then hold the keeper liable. They cannot apply to the DVLA for keeper details until day 28 and they have to get the NTK to you within 56 days after the event, hence the timing to give a small as possible window. When you appeal use a slightly different name and address as that on the V5. Not sufficient to cause delivery problems but sufficient that you know they haven''t got the details from the DVLA.

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 08:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 10:52
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,202
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (snowman816 @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 07:26) *
Would I make an appeal stating I am the RK not the driver when they send through further correspondence via post?


You appeal as the KEEPER, so no "I" or "me" at all. You can only deny being the driver if that was actually the case (don't say here whether or not it is the case). Best to say nothing on the matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 11:41
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



You should probably take a look at and heed emergencychimp's thread. He/she was picking-up keys and a parking permit.

In my opinion, a defence based on forbidding signage is likely to have a much greater chance of success than a defence based on leaseholder rights and Jopson v Homeguard in your case.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
snowman816
post Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 19:52
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 5 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,633



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 12:41) *
You should probably take a look at and heed emergencychimp's thread. He/she was picking-up keys and a parking permit.

In my opinion, a defence based on forbidding signage is likely to have a much greater chance of success than a defence based on leaseholder rights and Jopson v Homeguard in your case.



Would you mind elaborating on this please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 20:17
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 870
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Click on Members and do a search for emergencychimp to find his thread and read it. [I presume that emergencychimp is a male.]

Very briefly, emergencychimp went on an errand to collect some keys to an apartment and the parking permit on a change of tenancy.

He was not a party to the lease (with the result that he could take no comfort from the wording of the lease) and he was not delivering or collecting either an awkward or heavy load (with the result that he could take no comfort from the judgement in Jopson v Homeguard). [You can find the transcript of the Jopson v Homeguard case on the Parking Prankster's website in the Case Law section.] Despite that, he tried to use the lease and Jopson v Homeguard in his defence. He lost.

In the Case Law section of the Parking Prankster's website, you will also find the transcript for PCMUK v Bull et al. Bull and the others successfully defended the case against them because of forbidding signage - in essence (and I am paraphrasing), in this case, the parking operator in its signs said "NO PARKING" in one breath but, in the next breath, said "if you park, it will cost you £100" - that is not allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
snowman816
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 18:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 5 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,633



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 21:17) *
Click on Members and do a search for emergencychimp to find his thread and read it. [I presume that emergencychimp is a male.]

Very briefly, emergencychimp went on an errand to collect some keys to an apartment and the parking permit on a change of tenancy.

He was not a party to the lease (with the result that he could take no comfort from the wording of the lease) and he was not delivering or collecting either an awkward or heavy load (with the result that he could take no comfort from the judgement in Jopson v Homeguard). [You can find the transcript of the Jopson v Homeguard case on the Parking Prankster's website in the Case Law section.] Despite that, he tried to use the lease and Jopson v Homeguard in his defence. He lost.

In the Case Law section of the Parking Prankster's website, you will also find the transcript for PCMUK v Bull et al. Bull and the others successfully defended the case against them because of forbidding signage - in essence (and I am paraphrasing), in this case, the parking operator in its signs said "NO PARKING" in one breath but, in the next breath, said "if you park, it will cost you £100" - that is not allowed.



Great thanks for the clarification, I will read it and put together appeal based on this just before 28 day period
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 16:17
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,197
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 09:39) *
So with a windscreen ticket you appeal [b]as the keeper who has been handed the windscreen ticket so that it arrives on about day 26 after the event. You are not liable, the signs are forbidding and cannot possibly create a contract, only the landowner can take action for trespass.


Do as ostell advises - appeal as above.


QUOTE
I manage a few of the properties in the block and was there to drop some keys off so not sure if that could still warrant parking there


Complain to the Managing Agents, surely they will cancel the PCN if you ask politely and/or explain how you can avoid scam PCNs in future, maybe giving you a generic permit to park in a visitors' bay in future? They cannot be intending to punish people like you, surely - push them for an answer on that, and you KNOW that they can cancellation, so ask.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 13th November 2018 - 03:37
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.