UKPC Aylesbury Shopping Park |
UKPC Aylesbury Shopping Park |
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 - 20:40
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
Hi, the driver visited the Aylesbury Shopping Park (Cambridge Close) and received a parking charge from UKPC on the windscreen. The driver didn't spot the signs stating that the first 2 hours are free but only with a ticket. The driver was only there about half an hour to visit a couple of shops. The 'time first seen' and 'issue time' are 16 minutes apart.
My initial thought was that the driver should just pay up, but a bit of research led me here. Should they sit tight and wait for a letter? Slight complication that the driver and registered keeper are different. Photos attached of the parking charge and a couple from UKPC of the signs. Thanks in advance for any help or advice. This post has been edited by southpaw82: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 17:26 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 - 20:40
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 09:58
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
yes, which is why POFA talks about the keeper but assumes that this is the registered keeper unless shown otherwise. but denying one would not be beneficial
The registered keeper is the name on the V5. The keeper is the one in day to day control Think of hire companies. They are the registered keeper but the keeper is the hirer |
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 10:02
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Interesting question
You're not the keeper in accordance with POFA POFA says that the registered keeper is assumed to be the "POFA" keeper unless proved otherwise I wouldn't raise this issue just yet which would give UKPC a reason to pay extra attention to the case If UKPC fails to apply to the DVLA, a keeper claim is dead in the water If it does apply to the DVLA, not the keeper remains in play I'm not sure what POPLA would do with a registered keeper who denies that he was the actual keeper I suspect it would reject the appeal unless the keeper was identified - which would in turn identify the driver You would at least have to state that you do not tax or maintain the car Do you insure it and are you a named driver ? |
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 10:27
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
Thanks for the replies. Sounds like I should keep the wording as is then (admit to being the registered keeper but deny any legal obligation to identify the driver).
The insurance policy is in the driver's name. The registered keeper is a named driver on the policy. The driver also pays and manages the road tax, maintenance, MOT etc.. |
|
|
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 22:30
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
So unfortunately I didn't get time to post this today. My backup plan is to use the online appeals process tomorrow (day 26).
Having read some more, I've been pondering if I should add something about contract with landowner and grace period in the initial correspondence, something like this: I am the registered keeper for the vehicle listed on this notice but I was not the driver at the material time, nor do I make any admission as to the identity of the driver. Signage pertaining to the conditions of parking were not displayed sufficiently prominently at the entry to the car park or between the parking space and retailer visited. The driver was therefore unaware of the requirement to display a ticket during the free 2 hour period. I require that you produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, including evidence of the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end. Since the issue time and time first seen are just sixteen minutes apart, the stay falls short of the grace period. The parking charge is therefore null and void. I therefore request that you cancel the parking charge and do not contact me again, except to confirm that no further action will be taken and that my personal details have been removed from your records. Does this make sense or just confuse matters? Should I wait for an initial response before requesting a copy of the contract? |
|
|
Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 08:28
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No. Keep it simple. They'll reject it anyway.
POPLA appeals require the contract because they have to show it there or they lose. THe first appeal, for 99% of BPA PPCs, is just to get a POPLA code. They reject ALL appeals. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 08:32
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
That's what I thought, thanks very much!
|
|
|
Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 09:11
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
How long does it typically take to get a response to an appeal? No post has been received for the past week so not sure if it's been lost or just likely not been sent yet.
Thanks. |
|
|
Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 09:25
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
The BPA Code of Practise used to require a response within 35 days. But don't hold your breath!
This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 09:26 |
|
|
Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 09:47
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
OK thanks ostell, I'll sit back and relax then!
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 11:27
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
An update to this - the RK received two letters last week. The first inviting the driver to be named within 7 days and an offer to settle the charge at a reduced rate of £60.
The second letter dated and received only 3 days later was an NtK (unfortunately within the 28-56 day window) stating that £90 was now due. Somewhat confusing. Two different departments perhaps? I've read elsewhere that UKPC have in the past failed to provide proof of authority/contract at this site. Should this be requested in advance of receiving a POPLA code? Additionally, is there any point in responding to either letter (obviously not with the identity of the driver!)? Is it simply a case of waiting for a POPLA code now? This post has been edited by shadesbass: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 11:33 |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 11:56
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
You ask the DVLA who has requested details for your car. SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk
They should have responded to the appeal and given a POPLA code. First of all get that enquiry off to the DVLA. The offer of the reduced rate is a good sign in that they know they could be on dodgy ground |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 12:17
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
Thanks ostell.
Sorry I should have mentioned that a request to the DVLA has already been submitted. Still awaiting a response. I think UKPC have complied with this bit though as the first letter was to the address provided in the appeal, the NtK address was subtly different and matches the V5. The first letter was along the lines of "to assist us in making a decision about your appeal, please confirm driver name and address within 7 days. Failure to do so will result in a decision based on the previous info provided and subsequently a POPLA code". I guess once the 7 days have lapsed they'll reject the appeal (based only on driver not seeing signs) and move to POPLA. This post has been edited by shadesbass: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 12:18 |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 12:35
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Then they got the address from teh DVLA - only way they could have known to correct it.
Yes theyll reject. But if you dont see anything within 14 days (so 7 days of their deadline) TELL THEM you re still waiting on an appeal decision There have been cases where mysteriously the rejection letter never arrives, and the motorist only checks up AFTER the POPLA code expired |
|
|
Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 14:43
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
But if you dont see anything within 14 days (so 7 days of their deadline) TELL THEM you re still waiting on an appeal decision There have been cases where mysteriously the rejection letter never arrives, and the motorist only checks up AFTER the POPLA code expired Good to know, thanks! |
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:15
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
Now that 56 days have passed I'll post up the NtK and other letter received.
First letter: NtK: I believe the NtK is not PoFA compliant because it fails to include:
Is there anything else I've missed? POPLA code has not yet been received so will be chased. This post has been edited by shadesbass: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:29 |
|
|
Fri, 4 Oct 2019 - 16:39
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
So the POPLA code finally arrived and drafting of the appeal has begun.
Here's an potentially interesting fact - according to Companies House, UKPC changed their registered address in June but the PCN and some other correspondence (but not the NtK) still references their old registered address. Apparently a 14 day grace period is allowed whereby a company can continue to use their old address, but the PCN was issued outside of this period. Is this another stick to beat them with? How serious is this transgression? Incidentally, UKPC's registered accounts make for depressing reading for those opposed to their practices... |
|
|
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 09:27
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
I would be grateful for some feedback on the POPLA appeal below:
POPLA ref xxx 1) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 2) Registered keeper of vehicle but not keeper as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers 4) A reasonable grace period was not used (as defined within the British Parking Association Code of Practice). 5) Parking charges not clearly displayed on signs throughout the site as per BPA Code of Practice 6) Unclear and inadequate signage at entrance and throughout the site 7) No planning permission for signage 8) Wrong registered address on PCN and other correspondence 1) Non-compliance with requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Paragraph 8.2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states: (2) The notice must—(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The operator has not met these keeper liability requirements as they have failed to identify the creditor and have not stated the period of parking to which the notice relates. Keeper liability therefore does not apply. The operator can therefore only pursue the driver. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge. 2) Registered keeper of vehicle but not keeper as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states: “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper While I am the registered keeper of the vehicle to which this parking charge notice (PCN) pertains, I am not its “keeper” as defined above. That is, I do not maintain, tax, MOT or arrange insurance for the vehicle in question. Just as a car hire company (as registered keeper) would not be liable for the parking charge of a hiree (keeper) or driver at the material time, keeper liability cannot be transferred to a registered keeper who is not the vehicle’s keeper. Evidence that I, the registered keeper, am not the “keeper” of the vehicle is provided in the form of recent insurance, MOT and maintenance records showing that this is handled by an individual other than myself. 3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers There is no landowner authority nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), version 7 January 2018. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an un-redacted copy of the contract with the landowner, signed by the landowner. I requested this from the operator when appealing the charge, but they have provided no evidence of a valid contract. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA (although it must be signed by the landowner to comply with the BPA CoP) but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance: 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. 4) A reasonable grace period was not used (as defined within the British Parking Association Code of Practice) The BPA Code of Practice makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken. The operator did not allow the reasonable grace period required under this CoP. Paragraph 13.2 states that: you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. And paragraph 13.4 states that: You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before obtaining a ticket. Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods. He explains: “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” The PCN issued states: Issue Time: xxxx 20-7-2019 Time First Seen: xxxx 20-7-2019 A difference of 16 minutes falls short of the minimum combined 20 minute grace period stated above. I contend that the PCN was therefore improperly issued according to the BPA CoP. 5) Parking charges not clearly displayed on signs throughout the site as per BPA Code of Practice As stated in the current BPA CoP: 19.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions. The images supplied as evidence by the operator show that the charge of £90 is not clearly stated in the signage used at the site and therefore not in accordance with the BPA CoP. In fact, the photographic evidence provided by the operator is of such low resolution that almost none of the terms and conditions can be made out. The integrity of such evidence to prove that the content of the signage complies with the BPA CoP, Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 or even correlates with the amount on the parking charge must therefore be questioned. 6) Unclear and inadequate signage at entrance and throughout the site As stated in the current BPA CoP: 18.2 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. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: As can be seen in the series of photographs provided below (taken from Google Street View approximately 12 months prior to the alleged incident in question but consistent with the signage present at the material time), on entering the retail park’s car park from the main road, there are no signs indicating that a contract is being entered into. Two images showing entrance to car park Once inside the car park a bewildering collection of five signs are visible on the left-hand side. To someone visiting the car park for the first time, this appears to relate to a small area of parking off to one side of the main car park. Four images showing 'entrance' signage and turn taken to retailer before it From the entrance of the car park the right hand turn immediately after entering (beyond the white car in the photograph above) is the most obvious route to the retailer visited on the opposite side of the retail park. This junction is before the collection of signs on the left-hand side, which only retrospectively was known to cover the entire car park. This can be seen in the Google Maps Satellite view below: Image The ‘entrance’ signage is estimated to be 50 metres after the actual entry to the car park from the road, approximately 10 meters after the right turn taken once inside the car park. Paragraph 18.2 of the BPA CoP states that the operator must have: a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area and that it: must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park and that: Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. I therefore contest that the ‘entrance’ signage meets to the BPA CoP as they are situated within the car park, past several rows of parking spaces, the quantity of different signs clearly do not conform to a standard format and the amount of information contained on them in such illegibly small typeface cannot be reasonably absorbed while in charge of a moving vehicle. Additionally, the photographs provided below (again taken from Google Street View), show the view from approximately where the car was parked and the route towards the retailer visited. Image 8, taken from the elevated position of a rooftop camera (significantly higher than the vehicle’s occupants head height), shows that the sign intended to cover the bay that the vehicle was parked in is already being obscured by the covered shopping trolley bay. At head height the sign would be almost entirely obscured. Further to this, the photographs provided as evidence by the operator show several other tall vehicles parked between the keeper’s vehicle and the sign acting as further obstacles at the material time. It should be noted that the history feature in Google Street View shows that in May 2017 the trolley bay did not have a roof and the signage was more clearly visible. Planning for the new trolley bay was granted in November 2017, with the decision available to view in the public domain on the Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) website’s Planning and building control section: https://publicaccess.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk...l=OTLOIXCLJ8800 The operator has made no attempt to mitigate this change in environment to ensure their signage remains visible. Two images showing view of signage before and after covered trolley bay Upon approaching the retailer, no further signage pertaining to parking restrictions is forthcoming. Image showing view towards retailer Images from the retailer back towards the car park are also provided below, showing that even if the occupants of the vehicle were to look behind them for clues of parking restrictions on arrival at the retailer, no visible signage exists at all when viewed from this direction. Two images from retailer back towards car park I therefore put it that the signage designed to cover the parking space used was not adequate and contravenes Paragraph 18.3 of the BPA CoP: Signs must be conspicuous and legible And Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: (2) The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land). I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. 7) No planning permission for signage Separately, I can find no trace of a decided planning application relating to Aylesbury Shopping Park for the UKPC signage (the only relevant results found searching AVDC’s planning applications relate to signage for individual retailers). Assuming that indeed no planning application was submitted or approved, then the signs hold no validity even if properly sized, properly legible and properly placed to comply with the BPA CoP and POFA 2012. 8) Wrong registered address on signage, PCN and other correspondence The Parking Charge Notice, letters dated 02 September 2018 and 30 September 2019 and signage displayed at the site in question all reference the registered company address for UK Parking Control Limited as The Apex, 2 Sheriffs Orchard, Coventry, CV1 3PP. However, UKPC changed their registered office to Union House 111 New Union Street Coventry CV1 2NT on the 3rd June 2019 as evidenced at Companies House: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/.../filing-history As stated in the filing at Companies House, a grace period of 14 days is allowed, under which time a company may continue to use their previous registered office. However, this grace period had expired by the time the PCN was issued. Section 6 of the Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015, Regulation 25 states that: (1) Every company shall disclose the particulars set out in paragraph (2) on—(a)its business letters; Failure to comply with this requirement is an offence and further highlights the operator’s habitual disregard for regulations. Given the numerous arguments outlined above, I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN. This post has been edited by shadesbass: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 - 14:41 |
|
|
Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:16
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
The appeal to POPLA (similar to what was posted above) was submitted and a response received from UKPC:
1&2. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators to hold the registered keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the driver. Following the issue of this parking charge, UKPC received correspondence refusing to name a driver. We therefore had reasonable cause to obtain the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA; this led to UKPC issuing a Notice to Keeper dated 5/9/19. Issued 46 days after the date of the parking event (where a Notice to Driver was served), the notices comply fully with paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in transferring liability to the registered keeper. This Notice specifies the relevant land (Aylesbury shopping park) and identifies the creditor (UKPC). As the registered keeper has refused to identify the driver, the keeper is now liable to pay this parking charge, in accordance with PoFA 2012. We note the evidence provided by the registered keeper however this only shows another user of the vehicle and does not prove that the registered keeper is not the keeper. Draft response (cut down to 2000 characters): 1) The fact that UKPC have retrospectively stated the creditor & period of parking does not make the original NtK POFA compliant! Any comments appreciated. I also note that the "copy" of the PCN provided by UKPC has the wrong 'time first seen' - both 'time first seen' and 'issue time' are the same, suggesting that the stay was 0 minutes! The registered office address and other minor details (format of dates and times) have also been changed (the former to an address that isn't even the one registered with Companies House). It it worth pointing out that this is not an accurate copy of the PCN and therefore cannot be used as evidence? Something will have to be cut from the response as it's already at the 2000 character limit. An actual copy of the PCN cannot be uploaded by the RK as proof at this point in the POPLA process. |
|
|
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 08:23
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
1) You need to state they issued a Notice to Keper on X date, which failed to list... and that they sent a second, corrected NtK on Y date is irrleevant; for the purposes of the Act they are non-compliant, and there is no keeper liabilty. Accordingly the appeal MUST be allowed.
4) There is no single 20 min period, theres an unspecified amount at the start, and at least 10 at the end. 5) and 6) Use their own ref against them - for example state the signs supposedly at positions x, y z on the UKPC "evidence" dont exist, as can be seen from photos A, b, c on my POPLA appeal. UKPCs "evidence" is therefore a deliberate atttempt to mislead POPLA, or it is a mistake so obvious their entire submission is tainted 7) and as such no contratc was ever made, as a contract cannot support an illegal act. You cannot add new evidnece - your copy of hte PCN should have been included from the start. Its likely this version is just generated from a database using their current template. |
|
|
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 11:33
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 20 Jul 2019 Member No.: 104,882 |
Thanks very much for the advice!
I'll amend my response and try to squeeze into 2000 characters again. I didn't think to include a copy of the PCN in my appeal, lesson learned there. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:16 |