PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Case Success Stories
Insider
post Tue, 15 Aug 2006 - 23:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



As it says on the topic description - Parking Success Stories (Only for members here, not news stories!)

A new "Parking Success Stories" as suggested by Mista Pendle wink.gif

This post has been edited by Insider: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 08:43


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Tue, 15 Aug 2006 - 23:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
rodders1
post Mon, 22 Oct 2007 - 20:31
Post #61


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: kettering
Member No.: 13,321



A thank you to all who gave advice when I was ticketed for parking at QE Hospital King's Lynn in August, I sent the following letter and have heard nothing since.


Dear County Parking Enforcement Agency Ltd,



I refer to the enclosed invoice which was found fastened to the windscreen of my vehicle together with a notice warning that removal is prohibited by anyone other than the driver/keeper. You should be aware that Section 40 (d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from another as a debt due under contract, he or she utters a document falsely represented by him or her to have some official character or purporting to have some official character when he or she knows it is not.



You should also be aware that invoices issued by Private Parking Companies are not in any way covered by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and also that in any case the timescale for payment on the invoice does not conform to mandatory requirements of the said Act rendering the “notice” invalid.



Should you continue to harass me for payment this matter will be reported to the Police who are duty bound to investigate.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Wed, 24 Oct 2007 - 10:16
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



Thanks for all the help here in getting my clamping fee back. The clampers accepted my view that they were not correct in demanding payment for parking on private land.

See <a href="http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22845" target="_blank">http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22845</a>

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 - 11:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kai
post Tue, 6 Nov 2007 - 17:17
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
From: North East England
Member No.: 14,492



Hello Everyone,

I received a PCN a short while ago, see the thread here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry220038

Well, after an informal appeal to Gateshead council it was cancelled, so I am off the hook.

To summarise:

I was parked in a council run, small, free car park, supposedly over the bay line.

Received a PCN, code 24.

I appealed it on several grounds:

1 - The wrong contravention code was used, 24 is for on street, I was not parked on steet.

2 - Discresion would have been suitable on this occassion, no obstruction whatsoever was caused.

3 - There were several errors on the PCN which don't comply to the RTA.

4 - The DYL were illegal as they did not comply with 1018.

The council cancelled the PCN based upon point 3, but they rejected points 1,2 and 4.

For reference, this bit of my letter that counted: (making reference to the RTA)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) The PCN has been incorrectly issued and is thus misleading, invalid and unlawful.

My justification for this is as follows:

• (3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent .
The PCN does not comply with the above legal requirements. Specifically, the text on the front of the PCN reads: ‘A penalty charge notice of £60 is therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice. If payment is made within 14 days a reduced penalty charge of £30.00 is required’.

The first point to note here is the grammatical error: ‘therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice’. The PCN does not clarify the unit of measure referred to by the number 14. This could be hours, days, weeks or months.

Secondly, the PCN does not advise that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice (please see act above).

To summarise, the PCN issued does not comply with points 3 c, 3 d and 3 e of the aforementioned road traffic act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, success. Thanks to everyone who helped, it is greatly appreciated.

Kai. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kai
post Tue, 6 Nov 2007 - 17:20
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
From: North East England
Member No.: 14,492



Hello Everyone,

I received a PCN a short while ago, see the thread here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry220038

Well, after an informal appeal to Gateshead council it was cancelled, so I am off the hook.

To summarise:

I was parked in a council run, small, free car park, supposedly over the bay line.

Received a PCN, code 24.

I appealed it on several grounds:

1 - The wrong contravention code was used, 24 is for on street, I was not parked on steet.

2 - Discresion would have been suitable on this occassion, no obstruction whatsoever was caused.

3 - There were several errors on the PCN which don't comply to the RTA.

4 - The DYL were illegal as they did not comply with 1018.

The council cancelled the PCN based upon point 3, but they rejected points 1,2 and 4.

For reference, this bit of my letter that counted: (making reference to the RTA)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) The PCN has been incorrectly issued and is thus misleading, invalid and unlawful.

My justification for this is as follows:

• (3) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent .
The PCN does not comply with the above legal requirements. Specifically, the text on the front of the PCN reads: ‘A penalty charge notice of £60 is therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice. If payment is made within 14 days a reduced penalty charge of £30.00 is required’.

The first point to note here is the grammatical error: ‘therefore required to be paid within 14 of the date of the notice’. The PCN does not clarify the unit of measure referred to by the number 14. This could be hours, days, weeks or months.

Secondly, the PCN does not advise that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice (please see act above).

To summarise, the PCN issued does not comply with points 3 c, 3 d and 3 e of the aforementioned road traffic act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, success. Thanks to everyone who helped, it is greatly appreciated.

Kai. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
muckychimney
post Sun, 11 Nov 2007 - 17:17
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,312
Joined: 5 May 2007
From: ooot int sticks
Member No.: 11,891



Another victory against HullCC and their victimisation via Vinci park PA's.

I was contacted by a member of the public who had seen my victory win over Hull CC and was asked for advice, after following advice from myself, DW and CKent the Council responded yesterday to the gentleman that they were cancelling the PCN.



This post has been edited by muckychimney: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 - 19:57


--------------------
Images hosted by imageshack.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Sat, 17 Nov 2007 - 15:43
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,963
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



SUCCESS AT LAST

I've just had notification from the Northampton Bulk Process Centre that the the order for the unpaid penalty charge be revoked following my statutory declaration.

They also order that the charge certificate and notice to owner be cancelled.

They also point out that this does not cancel the original PCN and the local authority may take further action.

Link here to original post http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24827

THANK YOU to all on here who have given help and advice. Another £95 the scammers won't get.

This post has been edited by roythebus: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 - 15:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jmc990
post Sun, 18 Nov 2007 - 22:10
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 3 Jun 2006
Member No.: 5,976



As youll see in previous posts I had an 'invoice' from central ticketing after parking outside a comet store. After explaining my reasons for not paying they continued with the usual letters.
The final nail in the coffin for them seemed to be when I sent them a letter saying that I would charge an admin fee for replying to there junk mail.
Since then heard nothing. Yay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wayne Pendle
post Sun, 18 Nov 2007 - 23:38
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,038
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,088



I think jmc, if you are the owner and/but not the driver, that, is that key.

This post has been edited by Wayne Pendle: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 - 23:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaykay
post Sat, 24 Nov 2007 - 20:16
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 2,714




Probable success from down under, sunny (and hot) New Zealand.

Got some sort of ticket for overstaying in a ten minute parking slot at the local shopping mall 7 or 8 months ago. Got a letter a couple of weeks later saying the car owner had to pay - replied that no debt was owed (car is registered to a company), no stamp on letter. Follow up letter said that all the signage was correct and I had to pay more, strange as I hadn't made any comments about the signs. Unstamped letter sent again, saying they owed me money because I had to write again.

Some sort of further demand turned up about a month later from some outfit claiming to be debt collectors - a very dodgy piece of paper, regretting that I had to pay their collection costs as well. Yeh right, filed in the bin.

Perhaps coincidentally at about the same time a piece of paper was left in my letter box asking if anyone knew the physical whereabouts of my company. Let me explain, rural addresses in New Zealand are not identified by a house number - in order that you get your post you have to fill a form in for the Post Office giving all the names of everyone living there plus the identifying number for the post box (on the roadside). Therefore only the post office actually knows where people (or a company) live - try and find the Widget Company on River Rd, Rangiora, and you will have a long job knocking on a couple of hundred doors.

Suffice to say, no more demands for payment and I reckon they've given up. Curious thing, the demands for payment mentioned nothing about contravening any laws, so I suspect they are invoices which do not need paying. Now where would I have got that idea from!

A round of applause for heros such as Wayne Pendle, Tuefel, Box Clever, Legal Adviser and others. The beer is in the fridge, the steak is on the barby.


--------------------
jaykay in NZ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaykay
post Sat, 24 Nov 2007 - 21:17
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 2,714




And another one from sunny NZ.

Company van got parking ticket last December.

To avoid the "infringement fee" turning into a fine which is difficult to get out of, the recipient of a Reminder Notice has to request a hearing within 28 days. Did this, confirmed as recieved by local council (they wrote "you have requested a hearing"). Despite this the council still told the court just within six months (the six month court ruling is here as well), that I hadn't asked for a hearing. So the court issues a fine..........the ensuing form filling is specific to New Zealand so I won't go into the details, suffice to say the court staff do their best to prevent you actually getting to a court hearing.

Anyway, the law states the procedure that has to be followed when a Notice of Hearing (summons) is dated within six months of the alleged offence. This one wasn't, so I though an easy win - probably by an appeal to the High Court. As I have some personal issues with the local council (!) about perjury and malfeasance I witnessed summoned an enforcement officer to court........and cross examined him for half an hour. If I knew it could be such fun I would have done these sorts of things years ago - the transcript is very amusing.

To cut a long story short I won, but for the wrong reasons. My company never became the confirmed registered keeper of the van, this can only be completed by paying money and showing the company registration documents, and I didn't. Parking offences (and many other motoring offences) here are "owner liability", as the company wasn't the owner we weren't guilty. BUT, the court decided all the court paperwork was dated correctly (which it isn't).
My polite request for costs was ignored, so it's off to the High Court on 5th December for an appeal. The council will probably have to pay a few hundred pounds in preparing some sort of defence - naturally to avoid this shocking waste of ratepayers money I will be contacting the council about an out of court settlement - however this will involve them in admitting they committed perjury on a previous occassion. The letter I will be lodging with the council tomorrow will basically say we can all avoid wasting the courts time if they pay me some costs and admit they lied to the court, if they don't agree, a copy of this letter may just find its way into the papers submitted to the High Court about costs. I'll keep you posted.

and if you really must know http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4233014a24035.html
and http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4234395a6530.html

If you read these links bear in mind I appealed on the wrong grounds, a mistake I won't make again.


--------------------
jaykay in NZ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jaykay
post Wed, 5 Dec 2007 - 10:19
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 673
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 2,714




Continuation of the story above - this time it was a costs appeal in the High Court. It would appear council staff here in NZ are similar to their counterparts in the UK, routinely lying to the court and ignoring the law. The solicitor representing the council must have been annoyed with what he had been given to work with, ie documentory proof that council staff had written to me saying I had requested a hearing, then telling the court I hadn't etc etc - and he was effectively told off by the judge on a few occassions. He was trying to argue that I shouldn't get costs because I got off on a technicality in that the the council didn't prove unambiguously that I was the vehicle owner - the judge thought it was fundamental, -
the upshot was that the judge reserved his decision - which means I won't get it for a few days - I suspect it's going to be quite amusing. Will I get costs? almost certainly but probably about thirty pounds rather than the five hundred I asked for. If I do then it will off to the local paper to get a picture. The whole episode will have cost the council a few hundred pounds (again), I doubt I will be on their Christmas Card list.
I'll post the full decision when it arrives - thanks again chaps.



--------------------
jaykay in NZ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ali-b
post Thu, 13 Dec 2007 - 11:35
Post #72


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Member No.: 16,021



I was in an RTA on my motorbike on the way to work, near the London Planetarium when it happened. The Police officer that attended the scene dragged my wrecked bike to the kerb out of the way of traffic and arranged on my behalf with the AA (I was a member at the time) to get the bike recovered while I was taken to hospital (I was pretty banged up, but OK). In between the time when the bike was dragged to the kerb and the AA picking it up (less than an hour), I got a parking ticket. I appealed of course and they came back and said I still had to pay. I wrote a letter explaining the exact circumstances, where I was at the time of ticket issue, included pictures of the written off bike - sent it to the officer dealing with my case as well as Westminster Council and the parking enforcement dept. and they dropped the charges. Nice, but still a pain in the rear when you're recovering from hitting a transit van and they're being belligerent.

Still, a win is a win wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
secretmachines
post Mon, 17 Dec 2007 - 13:57
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,827



re: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24454

i contested, and got a letter back at the weekend saying "with reference to the evidence you supplied, i am pleased to confiurm that your PCN has been cancelled".

have faith people, have faith!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Dirty Bubble
post Sun, 30 Dec 2007 - 14:17
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Member No.: 15,962



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=25660

PCN cancelled, thanks to you lot!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
marshyc
post Wed, 23 Jan 2008 - 02:51
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,345



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=25010

I won!

Council didn't even contest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JGX
post Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 15:41
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 167
Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Member No.: 12,638



Thanks guys, another win thanks to Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=26891

This post has been edited by JGX: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 15:41


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sat, 9 Feb 2008 - 19:59
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



70willow. A missing sign was erected whilst the driver was parked; also non-compliant bays. Westminster Council cancelled tickets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Grimsby Man
post Mon, 18 Feb 2008 - 11:32
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,785



Well, Well, Well

It took just one E-mail to the owners of the retail park to get my Parking Charge Cancelled.

UK POA Ltd Leeds page 10

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=22075
This is how I got there

  1. Wrote standard letter to PPC stating that I was the Registed keeper and not the driver. UK POA replied with court letter
  2. Very quickly realise that writing to UK POA was a waste of time.
  3. Wrote to the Fee Paying Section of the DVLA, letting them know that, I believed UKPOA had unlawfully obtain vehicle details.
  4. DVLA replied with all UKPAO details and Owners details, plus a named person who could cancel Tickets
  5. Wrote/emailed Named person ask for ticket to be cancelled - 3 days later Parking Charge Cancelled
  6. Thanks to all that helped
  7. I am still carrying on the fight with DVLA, this Government agency is helping the scumbags to con people.


This post has been edited by Grimsby Man: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 - 11:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TINBASHER
post Wed, 20 Feb 2008 - 20:54
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Joined: 4 May 2005
From: South
Member No.: 2,871



Road traffic act 1984

Vehicle was allegedly parked in a pay and display car park without a valid parking ticket.I was NOT the driver at the time. Nasty letter from council was the first I know of the alleged offence.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=26946


1. Check the ordinance maps you would be surprised as Wayne Pendal has said many times how they cock things up

2. Check the orders have been sealed and dated.

3. The EHCR issue although I haven't gone into this in great detail it may come in handy for someone someday.

ps remember my case is not under the decimalised parking/ NPAS/PATAS system.


--------------------
When Stephen Hawking guest starred on the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Descent", he was taken on a guided tour of the set. Pausing in front of the warp core set piece, he remarked, "I'm working on that".

MORRIS MINOR 1960s = 70MPH NSL
ANY DAMN DECENT CAR TODAY = 80MPH NSL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greatscot
post Sun, 24 Feb 2008 - 22:57
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 806
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
From: Scotland
Member No.: 2,492



£2.65 Million worth of PCN's written off!!!
Thanks for the advice!!!

Newspaper article:
Newspaper article

Thread Link:
Thread Link

QUOTE
Parking fines worth £2.65million have been written off by Aberdeen City Council, it can be revealed.

More than 35,000 parking tickets issued between 2003 and 2006 will not be pursued by the local authority after an appeal ruling last year meant the fines may be unenforceable.

Council chief executive Douglas Paterson said "no further action" would be taken to collect the money, in a letter obtained by the Press and Journal.

The move follows a Scottish Parking Appeals Service adjudicator ruling in August 2007 that a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was invalid.

It was said that the notice created uncertainty because it did not make clear the date that it was issued.

Mr Paterson said in the letter that he did not accept the tickets were unlawfully issued, and they had not been cancelled. He admitted there were no plans to chase up the £2,649,539 worth of fines however.


This post has been edited by greatscot: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 - 23:04


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

23 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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, 28th March 2024 - 10:37
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here