PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CCTV PCN Park Watch Chester at Silver St Bristol Easter Saturday, Contravention: 'No Waiting'
NLondoner
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Got this 'No Waiting' PCN today, 9 days after the alleged incident. Never had a non-Council one before - doesn't seem fair.
Am asking them to cancel it because their signs are awful but I wonder if there are any other grounds?

Pepipoo is full of great resources. I searched for Park Watch and went through the responses.
Can't find any discussions about Park Watch on the MopneySavingExpert site (who apparently used to be called Defence Systems) apart from this one (Park Watch PCN)

I also found these in case that helps anyone:
Helpful newbie guide on MoneySavingExpert
Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking section on MoneySavingExpert
Successful complaints about private parking tickets - how to get them cancelled!
POPLA site - What happens after you get refused and receive an appeal code

Thanks to a MoneySavingExpert.com forum post, want to email to appeals@parkwatch.co.uk this text:
---------- suggested email -------
Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number: xxxxxxx

I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.

I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner, PureGym.

If you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.

Yours faithfully,

my name
Registered keeper of car reg num
My address and email
--------- ends -------------
Very glad of any comments.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 49)
Advertisement
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:03
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks Nosferatu but I don't see the procedural error, it's not obvious to me.
The adjudicator states that the driver has not been identified but they've reviewed the law and the keeper is liable.
Is that it?

Thanks JLC - not sure how to go about naming the driver to them, won't they simply say 'case closed' go away?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:29
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,460
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Under POFA if the driver has been identified before court action then there can be no keeper liability. POFA 5 (1) (b) & 5 (2)

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:32
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,834
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



they cannot say "case closed", of course. It is only when proceedings have STARTED that the keeper cannot get out of it

Earlier you said "5. I was not the driver. I hired out my car to another person via EasyCar and can prove it. "
This means you were not hte Keeper

Under POFA ONLY the KEEPER is liable. The RK is *assumed* to be the Keeper UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE

You proved otherwise
the person hiring the car was the keeper. This is indisputable as they were in day to day control of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:34
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks Nosferatu!
----------------------------------------------------
There seems to be no way to add anything at all to the case on the PoPlA website once logged in.
They've closed it on their website, so I presume I just email them and ask for an acknowledgement of receipt?
-------------- suggested email to PoPLA ------
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 only the keeper is liable. The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless proven otherwise.
I have proved otherwise so am not liable. Please correct this procedural error as soon as possible.
--------------------------
Really want this to work smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 20:55
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,460
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you can tell them that the car was hired out and give the details of the hirer/keeper and also send copies of any paperwork you hold. It is then up to the hirer to appeal.

POFA section 13 for you and 14 for the hirer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 09:17
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,834
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Ostell - you dont even need to do that.
The OP isnt liable, as not the Keeper

You need to submit a COMPLAINT OP. You require them to review your case as they have made a procedural error: they have ignored that the vehicle was hired out, and the appellant was not therefore the vehicles keeper. This is not disputable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:04
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks Nosferatu, I will make a complaint. The adjudicator wrote "The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified" so I can't write that they've 'ignored that the vehicle was hired out' can I?

-------------- suggested complaint text to PoPLA ------
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 only the keeper is liable. The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless proven otherwise.
I have proven otherwise so am not liable. Please correct this procedural error as soon as possible.
--------------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:35
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,834
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



YES YOU CAN

Because that statement is not correct!

POFA allows them to purseu *the keeper* of the vehicle. Check the legislation out for yourself!
The RK is *assumed* to be the keeper *unless proven otherwise*. You proved otherwise, and the operator did NOT dispute this therefore they accepted you were not the keeper.

I suggest you flesh out yoru complain by DIRECTLY referencing the legislation, and provide evidence the vehicle was hired - although you can point out this is not necessary, as you notice the operator AND POPOLA did not dispute this fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:37
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,460
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:17) *
Ostell - you dont even need to do that.
The OP isnt liable, as not the Keeper


So the registered keeper is assumed to be liable unless the contrary can be proved, POFA 2 (1), so he will have to show that someone else was the keeper at the time. Or have I missed something in the thread? Has this been proved to Park Watch or POPLA? The statement "5. I was not the driver. I hired out my car to another person via EasyCar and can prove it." would be insufficient.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:42
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,834
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The keeper is responsible, and the RK is assumed to be the keeper unless..., to be more precise.

It was not disputed by the operator that the vehicle had been hired. IT was not disputed by POPLA. IT was acccepted by both of them, and PROVEN by the statement of the appellant as this is evidence - in POPLAs eyes.
It is only insuffieicne IF THEY HAD DISPUTED IT. They did not dispute it. They accepted it.
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: Tuesday, 17th July 2018 - 17:28
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.