Station PCN (Saba Park Solutions/ZZPS) |
Station PCN (Saba Park Solutions/ZZPS) |
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 09:24
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
Hi all,
Great work to all who work on these forums. A PCN from Saba Park Solutions/ZZPS was recently recieved for 'failing to obtain a valid ticket our voucher'. The vehicle was captured on camera at point of entry and exit at a Station car park (Govia Thameslink). Payment for parkingis usually made on the Cashless Connect app. On this occasion a ticket purchase was forgotten for the day (mistake). The attached notice has been sent through to the vehicle owner (who was not driving on that day). Is there any valid reason for refusing payment? Its a mistake (albeit an honest one). Its anticipated the same vehicle will be using the car park in future. Or am I due to pay with with a view to 'lessons learned'? The mistake was not realised until the notice arrived in the post. If it was realised do these companies have a general history of waving the 'fine' if contact is made about the missed ticket before the notice is sent through? Thanks in advance for any assistance |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 09:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 20 May 2019 - 21:51
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
ZZPS letters show the "Investors in people" logo, they must use the money they get from the motorists to invest in them!
|
|
|
Tue, 21 May 2019 - 12:24
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
|
|
|
Tue, 21 May 2019 - 16:49
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
No
It just means that you move straight to "ignore" without the inconvenience of the second appeal to ITAL |
|
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 17:35
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
The latest letter from ZZPS. Is there really nothing I should be doing here? No communication? Is it just ignore until they stop sending letters? I take there is a pattern to these letters that have been seen elsewhere on this forum? Thanks again all for the support on this |
|
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 20:40
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,563 |
Ignore.
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 21:42
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 162 Joined: 14 Dec 2018 From: Sussex Member No.: 101,446 |
You can look forward to more, but ignore them all.
-------------------- “Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
|
|
|
Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 07:38
Post
#27
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 3 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,122 |
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 03:55
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Two options
1/ Pay 2/ Ignore There is no third option now. I wouldn't advocate paying, most people are of the opinion that the Govia court action would fail if defended. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 13:56
Post
#29
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 8 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,208 |
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 14:11
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
|
|
|
Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 15:20
Post
#31
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 8 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,208 |
Apologies
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 12:25
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
Worrying developments in the link a few posts above about getting a court summons (to a court nowhere near the alleged offence) but I note it is for more than one ticket if that make a difference.
Should this be a new trend is it reasonable to think the owner would have to engage legal support for the summons (if called) or would it be a straightforward defence using some of the previous answers on various message boards here? |
|
|
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 14:47
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Right now, its nothing for you to worry about. the thread youve linked to shows how laughable a summons it is.
Incompetent is one word that can be used. If you wish you could engage them in letter ping pong, and that will get you closer to the 6 months. its not tricky - ask sensible questions about hte charge. Loads of examples. |
|
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 19:24
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
The latest letter, this time from QDR Solicitors. Is this still and ignore or time to to respond? Previously not noted here (I only just picked up on it reviewing all the letters) the initial PCN is dated more than 14 days after the alleged offence. This is a camera issued PCN. From this post http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128481&hl= If no windscreen ticket then NTK has to arrive within 14 day, windscreen ticket the between day 28 and 56. Wrong for either and also Note that missing the dates doesn't invalidate the ticket as such, it just means they haven't complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and they cannot transfer liability to the Registered Keeper. You would suggest that they take the matter up with the driver, who you are under no legal obligation to name, and won't be doing so. That pretty much stuffs them, but they can be a dogged lot, these private parking companies. Should I pen a letter highlighting the date of the PCN? |
|
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:10
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
The date of the PCN is mostly irrelevant - that would just mean that the keeper liability part of POFA won't apply, but in your case it's railway byelaw land, so that section of POFA doesn't apply anyway.
I would be tempted to write to QDR pointing out that since driver paid in full for parking, under what clause of Bylaws section 14 are you, the keeper, guilty of an offence? You won't get a sensible answer (or even an answer at all), but it might add a delay if they have have an automatic schedule of if/when they escalate. This post has been edited by Sheffield Dave: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:10 |
|
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 20:27
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
The date of the PCN is mostly irrelevant - that would just mean that the keeper liability part of POFA won't apply, but in your case it's railway byelaw land, so that section of POFA doesn't apply anyway. I would be tempted to write to QDR pointing out that since driver paid in full for parking, under what clause of Bylaws section 14 are you, the keeper, guilty of an offence? You won't get a sensible answer (or even an answer at all), but it might add a delay if they have have an automatic schedule of if/when they escalate. Thanks Dave. What would the response be if the driver didn't pay in full? On this occasion a ticket purchase was forgotten for the day (mistake). In a previous post I thought a ticket had been bought for the day in question (for another car, there is more than one registered to the parking app used) but got my dates mixed up. |
|
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 21:39
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
in that case, just shorten it to " under what clause of Bylaws section 14 are you, the keeper, guilty of an offence?".
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 22:09
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,563 |
The 14 day limit for delivery of NTO letters for ANPR Byelaws tickets is only relevant if POPLA is dealing with the second stage appeal. If ITAL is dealing with the second appeal, they don't recognise this limit and use 7 months instead. Bonkers I agree. ITAL is paid by SABA so their claim to be independent is an obvious charade.
|
|
|
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 08:07
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 21 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,169 |
in that case, just shorten it to " under what clause of Bylaws section 14 are you, the keeper, guilty of an offence?". Thanks. Is the suggestion as short and literal as that? Is there any additional wording you'd advise to support? Thanks call for continued help, this forum has been a calming influence in the face of letters that can be alarming to read |
|
|
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 - 09:55
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
The question is mostly irrelevant - you'll never get a sensible reply, but it might delay things. Also, not including all possible questions at once gives more opportunity to string things out with follow-up questions. But bear in mind that QDR as just acting as the scary arm of debt collectors - they are not the slightest bit interested in whether you're at fault or not, they're being paid to scare people into paying up.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:42 |