Parking Private Ticket |
Parking Private Ticket |
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 19:16
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
Hi All,
A ticket has been received from private parking company - see context below. 1) This parking place only allows mobile payment. 2) When arrived and parked I thought the payment had gone through but it did not. 3) The tickets was given at 15:54 - as soon as i realised payment did not go through I made the parking payment at 16:47 for the time needed. 4) So essentially from 15:54 til 16:47 (53 minutes) there was no payment. See appeal context below: 1) "Email 1 (Me)- Appeal Sent.PNG" - shows the appeal sent via email 2) "Email 2 (PPS) - Appeal response.PNG" - Shows the response - which they didn't allow to process the appeal since i did not mention who the driver was (does not say anywhere on the notice to the driver) 3) "Email 3 (Me) - Response.PNG" - my response to them rejecting the appeal 4) "Email 4 (PPS) - Rejection.PNG" - their final rejection email with the attachments: "Appeal Rejection.pdf" | "Provided Parking Sign.jpg" | "Online Booking Confirmation 16.47 til 20.47.png" | "Online Booking Confirmation 20.50 til 21.30.png" Additional Attachments: - "Notice to the Driver.jpg" - Unfortunately the only picture i have. I managed to lose it, if it turns up i will re upload. - "Sign.jpg" - Image of the sign on site Just looking to see if there are any requirements they have not followed that could help if i did a POPLA appeal. See below attachments: https://imageshack.com/i/pn06ONLFj - Notice to the Driverr.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/plPwWmpfj - sign.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/pmuC7K5pj - Email 1 (Me)- Appeal Sent.PNG.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/pmzvSlOsj - Email 2 (PPS) - Appeal response.PNG.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/poRKnMJIj - Email 3 (Me) - Response.PNG.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/pnzjCKizj - Email 4 (PPS) - Rejection.PNG.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/poTE0Klfp - Rejection Letter.PNG https://imageshack.com/i/pnNvv2qAj - Online Booking Confirmation 16.47 til 20.47.png.jpg https://imageshack.com/i/po9R5Q9Bj - Online Booking Confirmation 20.50 til 21.30.png.jpg Thanks! This post has been edited by sh17: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 10:48 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 19:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 - 19:32
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So read the "Read me first " thread. You upload the images to an external site such as imgur and provide the link on this site.
P..S I don't open .zip files Possible prohibitive sign is that no parking contract is offered for non JustPark customers. No contract = No breach = No charge |
|
|
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 21:43
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:01 |
|
|
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 08:38
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
If the driver paid you mean - the driver appears not to have been identified so don't give away the identity I can infer it from your post above. Edit that post NOW.
As they don't yet have your address I would appeal once more as KEEPER pointing out that you dont have to provide the drivers details, lack of signage, you paid blah blah... do it so it arrives on about day 26 by 1st class post get a proof of postage. Crucially alter your address or name a little bit, so instead of Mr Green, use Mr Greene, instead of 123 Friars Way use 123 Fryars Way etc.... That way you can see if they send the Notice to Keeper without consulting DVLA which is a POFA fail.... I trust that the V5 has the correct address on it yes? This post has been edited by bearclaw: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 08:45 |
|
|
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 10:51
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:01 |
|
|
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 11:14
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
I can still infer the driver from your posts above!
|
|
|
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 11:41
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
EDIT your post, no I, we, they, he or even the dog, just 'the driver'.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 - 16:44
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:01 |
|
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 14:55
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
Post #3 and Post #8 I can tell you that it unambigiously identifies the driver!
This post has been edited by bearclaw: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 14:55 |
|
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 18:06
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 12 Feb 2014 Member No.: 68,709 |
This is a public forum,, meaning that it can be read by anybody. Do you think the parking companies don't know about it? The point about not hinting at who was driving is because while the driver is responsible for paying the charge, the parking companies don't know who it was, but they can shift the liability to the registered keeper. However to do this there are hoops that they have to jump through, which they often fail to do correctly.
Since this seems to happen on pretty much every thread, can't something be put on the READ THIS FIRST page to this effect??? This post has been edited by PaulPaul1308: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 18:07 |
|
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 20:28
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
But then who ever bothers to read the "READ ME FIRST"? Not many
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 14:09
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:01 |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 14:30
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:01 |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 14:34
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
Since you want to argue the toss rather than following the advice of the people you came to the forum for advice from, here's what a PPC can find out right now and show to a judge.
You, the poster have repeatedly identified yourself as the driver. You have also admitted to sending the emails you have shown images of. Since the the PPC know what emails they have received from who and when, they can now almost certainly match up this thread with which emails have been sent and received. So they now know the email address of the driver. Soon, you will receive a NtK through the post. When you post on this forum something along the lines of "I've now received an NtK" the PPC will then be able to show, from your posts, that the RK and the driver are the same person, and any protections afforded by POFA have been blown. Etc. |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 16:03
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
Post #3 and Post #8 I can tell you that it unambigiously identifies the driver! But unambiguous would not be good enough? Anyone could have paid for the parking i.e. a passenger of the car. Nowhere within the communications it explicitly states who the driver is. You've been asked before. Edit the posts then I'll consider helping. Till them I'm out. |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 16:40
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:02 |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 19:31
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 28 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,698 |
.
This post has been edited by sh17: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 15:02 |
|
|
Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 07:04
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Hit Report and ask a mod to do it for you
People WERE being helpful You seem to think the standard of proof required is higher than it actually is. You argued the toss about it instead, and are still doing so. Bye. |
|
|
Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 11:54
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Go back through your shambolic screwed up thread and edit every one you can, especially post #8 which makes a very specific statement in the second line with no ambiguity at all.
EDIT your post, NO I, we, they, he or even the dog, just 'the driver'. Or just pay them now and be done with it, they likely already have all they need to nail it on. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:58 |