PPS ... invoice? |
PPS ... invoice? |
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 19:22
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
Hi again wonderful people of the forum.
My good friend has received a invoice from a company called PPS for the sum of £60. They claim that the car was not parked in a bay at a tesco express car park at 5.32pm on a Sunday. The car actually wasn't parked in a bay, but it was parked in a position that did not block anyone. Anyway, is this another invoice from a private company? Should I tell my friend to ignore it or can he send the bellow letter which I sent to the parking eye a few months ago (with success) I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.'' |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 19:22
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 07:55
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Havea look at the land registry, call the council and ask who pays the NDR for the car park, etc.
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 12:30
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
So my friend is on the verge of just paying the £60, for the reason that he finds it too much hassle to do all this.
I would do the hunting around for him, but im busy as well. It looks like he has no argument with POPLA as to why he should have the ticket rejected. I can't think of anything, he didn't park in the marked bays on the Sunday, but he also wasn't causing obstruction to anything. I called the tesco express for him and the manager was not helpful in any way, he didn't tell me who the land owner was and said where my friend parked would of blocked the truck, thats why there is no bay there. But looking on google streetview its still impossible that parking in the position he parked would of blocked the delivery truck. I think if going to POPLA, he needs a reasonable excuse, and im struggling to find one for him. Which is why hes thinking to pay the £60 to get it over and done with. Furthermore, he parked directly in front of one of the parking signs! so he cannot even say he didn't see it or the signage was poor. He shops there every other day and has done for years, but he did not spot any signs. The manager of tesco said that the signs were there since April 2018. If you look on street view, others are parking where my friend parked. If you don't see the signs it really is common sense for any competent driver to park where my friend parked. If anyone can think of a reasonable argument with POPLA and what the chances of being accepted are it would be a great help. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 22:10
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
At that date/time/location, the sun was 8 degrees below the horizon and the weather was "Drizzle. Mostly cloudy" (16:50) or "mostly cloudy" (17:50). And those markings look very faded. So it was gloomy and damp and probably hard to see any road markings (i.e. to realise that there are marked bays). Even if the markings were visible, there is a big yellow hatched area which is obviously where they don't want you to park, and by implication ok to park where there isn't hatching.
|
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 11:26
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Indeed. And those signs clearly are not lit
So thats already two issues No decently AT NIGHT marked bays either. |
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 11:53
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
At that date/time/location, the sun was 8 degrees below the horizon and the weather was "Drizzle. Mostly cloudy" (16:50) or "mostly cloudy" (17:50). And those markings look very faded. So it was gloomy and damp and probably hard to see any road markings (i.e. to realise that there are marked bays). Even if the markings were visible, there is a big yellow hatched area which is obviously where they don't want you to park, and by implication ok to park where there isn't hatching. Thanks And the % chance of getting the POPLA decision in ones favour using that? In the appeal rejection from the parking company, they've stated clearly that it can be paid within 14 days for £60, but if you try and appeal it with POPLA they said the price goes up to £100. |
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 12:05
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
Bays I think are marked ok?
My friend parked directly in front of the parking signage This post has been edited by J4G3D: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 12:06 |
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 14:21
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
At night?
There is no percentage we can give you. Do your own research on POPLA decisions Unlit signs and poor markings have a reasonable chance. |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 13:03
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
Okay, my friend is lodging a POPLA appeal.
During the POPLA appeal process its asking who the driver was if submitting the appeal on their behalf. Or I must give my friends name if not submitting the appeal the drivers behalf. How can we get around this? or is this the point where we have to declare who the driver was? This post has been edited by J4G3D: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 13:11 |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 13:20
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
YOU DO NOT, EVER, IDENTIFY THE DRIVER.
You are submitting your appeal as the keeper. |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 14:54
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
YOU DO NOT, EVER, IDENTIFY THE DRIVER. You are submitting your appeal as the keeper. Okay, all done. I noted 6 different points as follows: - The road markings are not easily visible. - The area is not lit during darker periods. - The signage does not comply with the BPA code of practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with the driver. - The vehicle was not parked causing obstruction. - No valid contract with landowner. - The amount demanded is not a genuine Pre-estimate of loss. Lets see what happens. |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:06
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The amount demanded is not a genuine Pre-estimate of loss
That virtually guarantees rejection of the appeal The Supreme Court dismissed that point three years ago and raising it gives the assessor a box to tick |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 15:06
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Do not use GPEOL. That was killed off by Beavis except in specific circumstances.
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 16:58
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
The amount demanded is not a genuine Pre-estimate of loss That virtually guarantees rejection of the appeal The Supreme Court dismissed that point three years ago and raising it gives the assessor a box to tick The main point of this was the fact the charge was £60, the parking firm then warned that if you try to appeal this via POPLA then the price goes up to £100. Which I am asking how they can justify this. I don't think it makes it a auto rejection. The other points raised I think are quite valid. This post has been edited by J4G3D: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 17:01 |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 17:09
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Have a read of Beavis. The Supreme Court held that £100 was an acceptable figure in certain circumstances. The PPC don't have to justify it; the highest court in the land has done it for them. It is dead as an argument at POPLA because, regardless of the efficacy of your argument, the lay assessors at POPLA will see GPEOL, shout Beavis and dismiss the appeal.
However, it's your case. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...80-judgment.pdf -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 19:46
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
Have a read of Beavis. The Supreme Court held that £100 was an acceptable figure in certain circumstances. The PPC don't have to justify it; the highest court in the land has done it for them. It is dead as an argument at POPLA because, regardless of the efficacy of your argument, the lay assessors at POPLA will see GPEOL, shout Beavis and dismiss the appeal. However, it's your case. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...80-judgment.pdf It is done now, my friend and I were scratching our heads for 6 days wondering what points we should appeal with. With the points raised in the appeal, I can't see it being successful in all honestly. I guess after the rejection the only options left are.. 1. Pay it. 2. Wait for the court papers or a knock from the bailiffs. Which brings me to my next question.. How often do they actually take owners to the court? I'd assume a low percentage, but im guessing there aren't any figures out there? This post has been edited by J4G3D: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 19:46 |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 19:58
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Post #4
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 20:28
Post
#57
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
Post #4 PCN and signs were uploaded in various posts. The main argument in the appeal to POPLA was based around the signs. When entering the car park the signs aren't clearly visible to indicate that restrictions apply in this car park. See below: Once in the car park, the first signage stating restrictions apply within the car park are located on a yellow box hatching, which is against the highway code to stop on, therefore its impossible to read the signage even if one was to notice it. See below: The only visible signage when entering the car park is a big blue sign which doesn't state theres any restrictions in the car park other than the hours shown. See below: Once in the car park, tesco have always had advertisement boards all around the car park. Which confuses the situation. See below: And then there was the argument that theres no lighting in the car park, let alone on the signage. What do you think? This post has been edited by J4G3D: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 20:30 |
|
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 20:34
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
What do you think? That post #4 answered your question in post #55. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 10:55
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You cannot get bailiffs without court
So put that out your mind The invoice was always £100. There was a discount to £60 |
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 22:46
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 159 Joined: 28 Nov 2006 Member No.: 9,285 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:49 |