PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Total Parking Solutions Reading Uni
ohnoes
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 20:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Situation:
A paper ticket was attached to the vehicle by a TPS warden.

The vehicle was parked on a Reading Uni campus car park and there was a TPS sign nearby the vehicle. Will get a photo of one of these signs and attach it soon.

The driver of this vehicle is also a blue badge holder however it wasn't on display at the time of ticketing.

The vehicle was displaying a TPS 'halls of residence' permit, however the permit is made out in the registration number of a previous vehicle.

The permit was was photographed by the warden (with the old VRM on it) alongside pictures of the car and the sign behind it, although it is unreadable from the photos.

There is also a copy of an email communication where university has been contacted about the permit when vehicles were changed. The university replied stating the same permit displaying the old VRM could be used.

There is the added confusion of where a 'halls of residence' permit allows the driver to park on campus, which isn't entirely clear based on the information on the reading uni website.


PCN front and back:
https://imgur.com/a/HUtCy1O

Not sure if it has any bearing on this case, but found this on the university website, their parking t&cs: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/parking..._EFC_190618.pdf

No communications have been entered into with TPS yet, pending comments from the knowledgable folk here.
Can you suggest the best course of action based on the information given so far?

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:32


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 20:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 09:11
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,305
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Check out it's closing date here https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 09:12


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:30
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 10:11) *


Old code:
Code summary
Issuing operator: 000
Date code generated: Fri Jun 07 2019
Code sequence number: xxx
Deadline information
Your appeal deadline is Fri Jul 05 2019
You have 19 day(s) remaining for your appeal to reach POPLA

New code:
Code summary
Issuing operator: Total Parking Solutions Ltd (Code: 841)
Date code generated: Thu Jun 13 2019
Code sequence number: xxx
Deadline information
Your appeal deadline is Thu Jul 11 2019
You have 25 day(s) remaining for your appeal to reach POPLA


So should I am to appeal ON the 11 July or the day before 10th July?


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 19:36
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,940
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



Appeal online on the 11th.

In the meantime you must keep in contact with the RK address as they may well send a NTK.

Many sneaky companies are well known to issue a NTK regardless of a POPLA code being in play.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 15:32
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hello everyone,

TPS have sent an NTK.

They have addressed it to the details I gave on my appeal, i.e. they have not used the DVLA held details.

Please let me know how this changes next steps.

Are we still onto a winner here? How does this change the POPLA appeal angle?

NTK: https://imgur.com/a/omlYJCe

Thanks!

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 15:35


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 16:35
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,940
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



You need to get the RK to immediately get onto the DVLA and get confirmation that they did not check with the DVLA for the RK details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 17:20
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 17:35) *
You need to get the RK to immediately get onto the DVLA and get confirmation that they did not check with the DVLA for the RK details.


Thanks for the reply.
I've searched the forum and come up with a few threads that have different methods of requesting this data- some mention FOI, others a SAR with a £5 charge. Is there an accepted/official method to use to request this data from the DVLA?

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 17:25


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:26
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,896
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



There is an email address that you can use to request the details. Something along the lines of sar.request@dvla.gov...... . I can't get to my other computer to get the actual address but you get the idea. There is no charge but give them enough details so that they know it is the keeper requesting. They will respond saying 28 days but you should get a reply within a few days.

You appeal to POPLA after 56 days are up stating that the DVLA was never contacted and therefore no keeper liability and include the response from the DVLA

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 09:39
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Thanks, the email has gone off to DVLA.
I have asked them for any requests for my personal data between the date the NTD and NTK were issued, inclusive.



--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 09:40
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,497
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 21:26) *
There is an email address that you can use to request the details. Something along the lines of sar.request@dvla.gov...... . I can't get to my other computer to get the actual address but you get the idea. There is no charge but give them enough details so that they know it is the keeper requesting. They will respond saying 28 days but you should get a reply within a few days.

I have sent a SAR to the DVLA on several occasions. If they have no data i.e. there has never been a request then you will get an email back stating this. If your data has been accessed then you will receive a letter within a few days with dates & details of who requested your data.

Send an email to SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk with something like this:-

DVLA Vehicle Record Enquiries section
Longview Road
Morriston
Swansea
SA99 1AJ

Dear Sirs

Re: VRM 123 ABC

As the Registered Keeper of the above VRM could you advise who has accessed my personal details with regards to this marque, how often and when did the DVLA send the keeper details out. Please advise the information with regards to events between 01/10/2012 to date

I understand there is no charge for this information and look forward to your speedy reply.

My name
My address

Below is a list of former addresses where I had the vehicle registered


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 13:39
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Thanks nigelbb, I sent something similar asking if TPS or anyone else had accessed my data and if DVLA had provided it during the relevant time period.

Will see what they come back with


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 16:01
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



DVLA have just replied stating no requests have been made for RK information hence they've not provided anyone with them.
Looks like TPS have fallen hook, line and sinker?

Is there a suggested wording for the POPLA appeal with regards to the failure to obtain RK details from the DVLA?

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 16:02


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 19:28
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,896
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As well as the usual fails you say that they have failed to meet the requirements of POFA by failing to comply with the requirements of paragraph 11 of POFA and there can therefore be no keeper liability

Remember not to send before day 56 if at all possible so that they can't suddenly apply.

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 19:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 10:38
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:28) *
As well as the usual fails you say that they have failed to meet the requirements of POFA by failing to comply with the requirements of paragraph 11 of POFA and there can therefore be no keeper liability

Remember not to send before day 56 if at all possible so that they can't suddenly apply.


Updated the draft, can you please have a look and tell me if it is any good?
I have updated the first point to be regarding the non compliance with the third condition for keeper liability and I have also modified the 'compliant NTK' section to focus on the fact that the NTK has not been served as the keepers details have never been requested from the dvla. is this correct?

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle VRM XXX and am appealing a parking charge from TPS on the following basis:

1. TPS have failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 11 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, therefore no Keeper Liability can apply.
1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was not served – therefore no Keeper Liability can apply.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. The car park signage is inadequate and offer no contract a driver can accept
4. No breach took place
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

TPS have failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 11 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, therefore no Keeper Liability can apply.

Paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act sets out the third statutory condition which must be met in order for the ‘creditor’ (the parking company) to benefit from ‘keeper liability’. The relevant wording is reproduced below. I attach an email confirmation from the DVLA stating that no requests for the keepers details was made to them before or after TPS have issued a document they claim to be a 'Notice to Keeper' for the vehicle in question (dated 17/06/2019).


11 (1) The third condition is that—

(a)the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) has made an application for the keeper’s details in relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate;

(b) the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been given) or 9(4) (where no notice to driver has been given);

© the information sought by the application is provided by the Secretary of State to the applicant.


A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – therefore no Keeper Liability can apply.

As evidenced by my first point above, TPS have not fulfilled the 'third condition' specified in paragraph 11 for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. As keeper details were never requested from the DVLA, keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;


The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper's address within the 'relevant period' which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
The notice to driver was given in the form of a windscreen ticket left on the vehicle on 13/05/2019, and applying the 56 day rule above a compliant notice to keeper must have been issued to arrive by 09/07/2019.
As evidenced by the attached email from the DVLA, not only have TPS chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the third condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly served. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge that does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. 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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

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 applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only 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 burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

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.''


Car park signage is inadequate and offers no contract a driver can accept

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY” and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

No breach took place.

TPS have provided photographs of a University of Reading permit in the windscreen of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach. I have provided TPS with email correspondence that the permit was considered to be valid by the landowner. TPS, in their rejection of my appeal to them as the registered keeper of the vehicle have stated: “Please note, the permit is valid for halls of residence parking only”. However, the signage at the location does not detail any specific requirement with regards to the type of permit displayed. The only relevant conditions on the signage related to permits is as follows:
“PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY MONDAY-FRIDAY 8am-5pm”
“Ensure you have displayed your permit clearly, face up in the windscreen or window of your vehicle allowing clear visibility for the parking attendant”
Arguably, these conditions have been complied with as evidenced by the email correspondence with the landowner and the photographic evidence taken by TPS therefore there has been no breach and no charge is due or payable.

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practices

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 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 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 in small print 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 CoP 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.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


This post has been edited by ohnoes: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 09:45


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 2 Jul 2019 - 08:42
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Good morning everyone, any thoughts on the draft in my last post? All feedback appreciated!


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 13:23
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hi everyone, sorry to bother again. Has anyone got any thoughts on the draft above?


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 13:33
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,010
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It looks to have covered the bases.

I would expect POPLA to still somehow side with TPS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 13:02
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Looks like TPS are contesting the POPLA appeal but have not answered any of the questions posed in my POPLA submission.

This is the basis of their evidence in full:
Operator Name Total Parking Solutions - EW
Operator Case Summary
The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site. The onus is with the driver to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions. The vehicle was logged by Patrol officer as the vehicle did not display a valid permit which breaches the Terms and Conditions of this site.

They have provided a bunch of photos of signage and a map with their locations on the campus, images of the actual PCN, the non compliant NTK that was sent to the details provided to them on the RK appeal letter (rather than from the DVLA), images of the car in situ and copies of the initial appeal and replies.

Would you recommend adding any comments to POPLA before they look at the case?

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 13:03


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 13:39
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,010
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, of course

1) Anythign they DIDNT comment on (rebut), tell the POPLA assessoer that means the operator agrees with you. AS they agree, the appeal must be upheld
2) Anything they DID comment on, examine it to make sure it actually says what they say it does. If it shows an issue you say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 14:42
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 14:39) *
Yes, of course

1) Anythign they DIDNT comment on (rebut), tell the POPLA assessoer that means the operator agrees with you. AS they agree, the appeal must be upheld
2) Anything they DID comment on, examine it to make sure it actually says what they say it does. If it shows an issue you say.


Well then they literally agree with my entire appeal, apart from photos of the car/signs/pcn/ntk etc my last post was the entire content of their evidence to the assessor!

I will post up draft comments for review before posting them to POPLA.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 14:43


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 14:57
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,010
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You have 2000 CHARACTERS for your response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Thursday, 5th December 2019 - 19:48
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.