PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Total Parking Solutions Reading Uni
ohnoes
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 20:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Situation:
A paper ticket was attached to the vehicle by a TPS warden.

The vehicle was parked on a Reading Uni campus car park and there was a TPS sign nearby the vehicle. Will get a photo of one of these signs and attach it soon.

The driver of this vehicle is also a blue badge holder however it wasn't on display at the time of ticketing.

The vehicle was displaying a TPS 'halls of residence' permit, however the permit is made out in the registration number of a previous vehicle.

The permit was was photographed by the warden (with the old VRM on it) alongside pictures of the car and the sign behind it, although it is unreadable from the photos.

There is also a copy of an email communication where university has been contacted about the permit when vehicles were changed. The university replied stating the same permit displaying the old VRM could be used.

There is the added confusion of where a 'halls of residence' permit allows the driver to park on campus, which isn't entirely clear based on the information on the reading uni website.


PCN front and back:
https://imgur.com/a/HUtCy1O

Not sure if it has any bearing on this case, but found this on the university website, their parking t&cs: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/parking..._EFC_190618.pdf

No communications have been entered into with TPS yet, pending comments from the knowledgable folk here.
Can you suggest the best course of action based on the information given so far?

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:32


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 20:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 09:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



I've got a picture of a sign in the car park: https://imgur.com/a/UCIjtac

Sign makes no mention of the distinction between a 'halls' permit or any other type of permit.
Combined with the email from the university confirming old permit can be used with new car, I'd say the driver has a pretty good chance of fighting this off.
Can someone suggest next steps please?


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:05
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So a letter of appeal FROM THE KEEPER so that it arrives on day 26. The appeal will, of course, be that the principal of the site has confirmed by letter that the permit with a previous VRM is valid and therefore there can be no breach and therefore no charge. Including, of course, a copy of that letter.

When you write use an address slightly different from that appearing on the V5, but still valid and deliverable. This will identify if they have contacted the DVLA. To claim against the keeper they have to deliver a Notice to Keeper between days 28 & 56 AND also contact the DVLA to get the keepers details. Failure to do either means that they can only claim from the unknown driver. Check that the letter about the permit doesn't compromise the situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:21
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 11:05) *
So a letter of appeal FROM THE KEEPER so that it arrives on day 26. The appeal will, of course, be that the principal of the site has confirmed by letter that the permit with a previous VRM is valid and therefore there can be no breach and therefore no charge. Including, of course, a copy of that letter.

When you write use an address slightly different from that appearing on the V5, but still valid and deliverable. This will identify if they have contacted the DVLA. To claim against the keeper they have to deliver a Notice to Keeper between days 28 & 56 AND also contact the DVLA to get the keepers details. Failure to do either means that they can only claim from the unknown driver. Check that the letter about the permit doesn't compromise the situation.


Hello Ostell, Thank you for your reply.

Just to clarify if my understanding is correct.
Date of ticket = Monday 13/05/2019
26 days later = Saturday 08/06/2019
Therefore, a paper appeal will be sent with proof of posting (first class) on Friday 07/06/2019 by the keeper to TPS. Is this correct?

Draft for the paper appeal, anything you would add here?

Dear Sir/Madam,

This appeal to you is being made by the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX which was issued a charge ref XXX.
I am not obligated to disclose the details of the driver, nor will I be doing so.

As per your photos, the vehicle was displaying a permit in the windscreen. The permit was made out to a different VRM than the one displayed by the vehicle.
Please also find enclosed a copy of email communication between the registered keeper and the site owner confirming that displaying a permit with a previous VRM is valid, and therefore there can be no breach and therefore no charge is payable in this case.

Yours Faithfully,

Registered Keeper


Regarding the email between site owner, I have read it and the content is along the lines of the below. There is no mention of who was driving the vehicle. Is it ok to include?

Dear Sir/Madam,

"I" have a halls parking permit but have changed "my" car over Christmas. Would it be possible to get an updated permit please?
"My" previous reg was XXX and the new one to be on the permit is YYY


The reply from site owner:
Dear Name,
Thank you for your email. We have updated our records - all you need is to transfer your existing permit into your new vehicle. Please do not amend the permit


This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:26


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 10:45
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So Day 26 is a Saturday so post 2 days earlier, Wednesday, to arrive on the Friday. Yes Certificate of Posting. Assumed delivered 2 working days later.

Yes that letter looks fine, with nothing to drop the keeper in the clag.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 14:05
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 11:05) *
So a letter of appeal FROM THE KEEPER so that it arrives on day 26. The appeal will, of course, be that the principal of the site has confirmed by letter that the permit with a previous VRM is valid and therefore there can be no breach and therefore no charge. Including, of course, a copy of that letter.

When you write use an address slightly different from that appearing on the V5, but still valid and deliverable. This will identify if they have contacted the DVLA. To claim against the keeper they have to deliver a Notice to Keeper between days 28 & 56 AND also contact the DVLA to get the keepers details. Failure to do either means that they can only claim from the unknown driver. Check that the letter about the permit doesn't compromise the situation.


Thanks once more.

Is it ok for RK to send the appeal from a different address (and indicate reply to one different to) the one on the V5 altogether?
V5 address is their 'home' address, whereas they are understandably away from home at uni for the moment.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 14:07


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 15 May 2019 - 22:04
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Yes, of course. But warn those at home address to be on the lookout for documents and forward them quickly. Don't indicate it is a different address, they maty smell a rat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 17 May 2019 - 20:10
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hi ostell,

This is regarding: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1485310

I've realised the info given was slightly incomplete and wanted to double check if this makes any difference to the appeal angle.

1. The email communication to the site owner about the permit mentioned in the thread was sent by a relative of the RK - the relative refers to the vehicle in the communication as 'their' car despite not being the RK.

2. The appeal will be sent by the RK to TPS as outlined by you in the thread- will the fact that the relative of the RK refers to the car as 'theirs' affect the appeal? Shall the email communication with the site owner still be included in its unredacted form?

Thanks!


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:00
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Nothing wrong with sending that letter, Theoretically he may be the owner, where as you are the registered keeper, two different legal entities, may cause them a bit of problem understanding though. Not to worry.

This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 13:45
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Appeal sending date fast approaching, one final question:

Should i use first class post + proof of posting or would second class + proof of posting suffice bearing in mind the timeline and instructions above?


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 13:56
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Always First class as the letter is assumed delivered 2 business days later.

I think now is the time for the RK to ask the DVLA who has requested their details, starting with the day of the alleged breach and today. SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 13:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 13:57
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Thanks.
Reminder set and everything is ready to go on Wednesday.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 16:23
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



The inevitable rejection arrived today (and a copy of a sign in the car park for reference): https://imgur.com/a/nhFecn6

The address used by them was the one provided on the RK appeal letter.
The signs at the location mention nothing about the difference between a 'halls of residence' permit or any other kind of permit which seems to be their basis for rejecting the appeal.

Advice on next steps appreciated.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 16:25


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 08:40
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,442
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Good, working to plan so far, they haven't applied to the DVLA and they haven't yet given a Notice to keeper. What sort of time limits are on that rejection letter? Are you expected to respond with something?

The idea is to get past day 56 without them issuing a Notice to Keeper or applying to the DVLA.

Post up the redacted rejection letter so that we can all see what they have said.

I am minded to thank them for the image of the sign but then point out that the sign is not offering a parking contract to those without permits. To be sent as late as possible so that it doesn't incur any further action by them.

Here's some text I saved about forbidding signs, work this in:
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Remember the intention is to get to day 56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 08:46
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hi ostell,

The rejection letter is on the same link as the sign (scroll down when you open the link):

https://imgur.com/a/nhFecn6

For clarity, the picture of the sign is one taken by us in the car park. It did not come with the rejection letter. The rejection letter simply mentions that the permit is valid for halls of residence parking only.

The options given are:

1. Pay the charge within 14 days at lower rate (by 21/06/2019) or at full rate (by 05/07/2019)

2. Appeal to POPLA (by 05/07/2019)- they have given a POPLA code.

3. Do nothing and face scary letters from our 'debt recovery process'





--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 09:35
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,434
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



You'll appeal to POPLA as late as possible (so they don't have time to serve a valid NTK once they read it).

The first point of appeal will be PoFA non compliance and that you as keeper are not liable, then the other appeal points such as the signage not offering a contract to the driver (as it's forbidding) and so on.

Read up on other threads on POPLA appeals, compile your own and post for a review.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 10:30
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,055
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed, same as every thread where you have POPLA as an option, youre appealing as late to POLA as possible - ONLINE - using hte LENGTHY, 4000 word appeals you can find> ONE element of the appela will be that they have not issued a NtK such that it is received within the period laid down in statute.

Bearing in mind you will be submitting on day 53 or 54 or so, unless they are VERY quick - same day quick - they CANNOT issue a NtK such that, 2 working days later, you would have recieved it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 13:22
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Thank you both.

I will start to draft a POPLA appeal on the assumption that an NTK will not be issued in time.
I will also mention the forbidding signage and the fact there is no differentiation made between the types of permit on the signage- a Reading University permit was displayed and they're contending it wasn't valid for the area parked in but the sign makes no mention of which permits are/are not valid.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 13:03
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



How is this for a first draft?

I've also added in a part about the signage being forbidding - but also the fact that there WAS a valid permit in the windscreen and their signage makes no distinction between a halls of residence permit or any other type of permit therefore there was no breach.


Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle VRM XXX and am appealing a parking charge from TPS on the following basis:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – therefore no Keeper Liability can apply.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. The car park signage is inadequate and offer no contract a driver can accept
4. No breach took place

A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – therefore no Keeper Liability can apply.

TPS has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) 'The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) - (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further 'If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.'

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper's address within the 'relevant period' which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
The notice to driver was given in the form of a windscreen ticket left on the vehicle on 13/05/2019, and applying the 56 day rule above a compliant notice to keeper must have been issued to arrive by 09/07/2019.
As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


Car park signage is inadequate and offers no contract a driver can accept
The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY” and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

No breach took place.
TPS have provided photographs of a University of Reading permit in the windscreen of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach. I have provided TPS with email correspondence that the permit was considered to be valid by the landowner. TPS, in their rejection of my appeal to them as the registered keeper of the vehicle have stated: “Please note, the permit is valid for halls of residence parking only”. However, the signage at the location does not detail any specific requirement with regards to the type of permit displayed. The only relevant conditions on the signage related to permits is as follows:
“PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY MONDAY-FRIDAY 8am-5pm”
“Ensure you have displayed your permit clearly, face up in the windscreen or window of your vehicle allowing clear visibility for the parking attendant”
Arguably, these conditions have been complied with as evidenced by the email correspondence with the landowner and the photographic evidence taken by TPS therefore there has been no breach.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 - 10:12


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 09:00
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



I've received this additional letter from TPS: https://imgur.com/a/JvAa9pc

Apparently the POPLA code they mentioned in the first letter was invalid.
Does this affect when I want to submit the appeal?
The incorrect code was given on a letter dated (07/06/2019)
The 'new' code was given on a letter dated (13/06/2019)

Thanks for advice in advance.



--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 77.78%
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 September 2019 - 20:01
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.