PCN received for unauthorised parking. First steps? |
PCN received for unauthorised parking. First steps? |
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 - 12:06
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 13 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,280 |
Hi all,
Someone recently received a notification from zipcar (Avis) about a PCN issued to them regarding an unauthorised vehicle parked in a private parking while this person was hiring it. The case is slighlty similar to this one: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121300 This person is at the moment at the stage of waiting for Euro Car Parks to send the PCN to them as the registered keeper (since zipcar gave them the details as the car was hired from them). So here's the story: on that date the car was driven to the Ruislip Lido, where there are two car parks. At the time it was quite confusing what car park to go to as they both share the actual same space. The car should have driven to the council's pay & display car park, but because of confusing signs, it ended up parking in the restaurant's guests parking. Without realising this, the council's payment machine was used to get a ticket for the day, which cost £5. The keepers went about their business in the lido and eventually left, without realising they had done anything wrong. Now a PCN has been issued for £85 (£50 if paid early), and unsure how to proceed. The signing is confusing as otherwise they wouldn't have bothered buying the ticket from the council pay machine, and obviously this is done deliberately to get people into parking in the wrong place and get a fine. On the other hand, it's unclear how much evidence could be provided to prove that. Do you think an appeal using the "one size fits all" template from the newbies post in moneysavingexperts should be used in first instance? If the appeal gets rejected and ends up in POPLA, what do you reckon are the chances of winning? Is there anything on the PCN (attached) that could be used for it not being POFA compliant? Assuming the PCN sent to the keeper will be very similar Find attached the PCN sent to zipcar (redacted), and also some photos found about the signs and layout of the parking, as they both share the same entrance and space. Many thanks in advance. This post has been edited by moneysavingexpertmel: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 - 14:58 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 - 12:06
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 10:48
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
You will be signing a witness statement to the effect that those documents were NOT included with the NTK. That should be enough. The PPC are supposed to send copies to YOU, it's not enough that they received them from Zipcar.
They've got big brass b*ll*cks if they are thinking about lying about that on their witness statement! -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 10:53
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 13 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,280 |
You will be signing a witness statement to the effect that those documents were NOT included with the NTK. That should be enough. The PPC are supposed to send copies to YOU, it's not enough that they received them from Zipcar. They've got big brass b*ll*cks if they are thinking about lying about that on their witness statement! Thanks ManxRed, this is what they are saying in the evidence letter: https://imgur.com/a/BP7f798 I will do some research here about how to do a witness statement and uploading it to popla later. |
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 11:05
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
The witness statement refers to what would happen if this ever got as far as court.
At the moment, they will say ANYTHING to try and persuade you that you don't have a case, in order to part you from your hard-earned dosh. Their NTK did not conform with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you can check this yourself online. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted. In particular, read section 14 (2) (a), and then check the clause 13 (2) that it refers to. Them saying that the highly reputable (sarcasm) firm of Gladstones have confirmed that it conforms, just shows how much b*llsh*t they are prepared to tell you. -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 11:34
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 13 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,280 |
OK. Let's hope it doesn't go that far. Will reply repeating that those docs were never sent therefore the ntk is not POFA compliant and hope I get a good adjudicator.
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 11:42
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Refer to the fact that they are specifically non-compliant with clauses 14 (2) (a) and 13 (2).
-------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 13:18
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Indeed, give the specific section. Dont assume POPLA are competent.
Tell POPLA that ECP have not disagred with you; whil eht eNtH MAY be compliant with POFA, without the *mandatory enclosure of the hire agreement* the notice to hirer is NOT compliant with POFA, and any hearsay statement of it being "checked" by Gladstones, who are highly disreputable anyway, is meaningless and no weight can be given to it. |
|
|
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 09:23
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 13 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,280 |
All done now. Let's wait and keep our fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 12:18
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 13 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,280 |
Hi everyone,
I'm writing to give you an update on the POPLA case: the appeal has been successful QUOTE The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been identified and the operator is pursuing the appellant for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle in line with POFA. POFA requires that in order to transfer liability for payment of a charge from the unidentified driver of a vehicle to the hirer of that vehicle, an operator must obtain from the keeper of the vehicle “a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement”, “a copy of the hire agreement” and “a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” POFA also requires that an operator issues a “notice to hirer” as well “a copy of the documents mentioned […] and the notice to keeper.” The operator’s evidence includes copies of the documentation received from the hire company in response to its original ‘notice to keeper’. I am not satisfied that this documentation is in line with the requirements set out above. A copy of an excerpt of the hire company’s terms and conditions, in which the hirer’s liability for charges incurred while using a hired vehicle is outlined, however there is no evidence that the hirer agreed to these terms when hiring the vehicle (a “statement of liability signed by the hirer”). I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator has adhered to the requirements set out by POFA in order to transfer liability for the charge to the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal. I can't thank you all enough for all the help and support provided, you have been life savers! I will be adding this case to the list of successful POPLA cases. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 07:56 |