Show Posts - 968t

APCOA response....https://imgur.com/fw8zYkt

Unfortunately it was out of time on the online system and before I managed to write to them the Debt Collection Notice arrived from ZZPS - total now £155. My own fault for being slack to respond but been away and didn't manage to get round to it.Should I still write to APCOA or is there a different approach now?

Quote from: DWMB2 on 22 Aug, 2024 16:18Would personally still write to them just to say that the driver paid and as such they have no claim.Is writing a paper letter or using their online system preferred in this instance?

Unfortunately as I have been away, I am already past day 27. Does this matter or shall I just ignore them until they stop writing to me if the are not likely to litigate?

Hi Hippocrates, I am currently waiting on my appeal, we have a date but it has not happened yet.I will update once this has gone through.

It used to be possible to pay on departure at this particular station carpark but now it seems this is no longer possible. When the driver tried to pay upon departure they could not as it was too late, only the remainder of the day could be paid for, which was done via the app hoping that this payment would be sufficient. The ticket then followed in the post addressed to the keeper. I know there is a standard wording for these kind of tickets along the lines of the parking company not being able to pursue the keeper. Is this applicable in this case?Many Thankshttps://imgur.com/O4yIbvlhttps://imgur.com/4I4Jv0g

Quote from: cp8759 on 27 May, 2024 09:44@968t I suggest you make a representation asking the council to exercise discretion, and if they refuse an appeal to the tribunal can be easily won based on these cases:Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230464748, 15 February 2024)Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230487415, 23 February 2024)Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545861, 26 February 2024)Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240138955, 18 May 2024)Of course you don't want to mention that now because doing so would undermine the argument. Here's what you could send:Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,In the first instance I require you to reconsider my informal representations. I also draw your attention to the decisions in Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) and Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), while those cases are not binding there is no reason to suppose the adjudicator would reach a different conclusion in this case.Yours faithfully,Make representations online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.Formal notice of rejection has just arrived. The reasons given are pretty much the same as the first response posted above, wrong vehicle paid for (they acknowledge that I paid for the wrong vehicle and reference the Rinngo evidence I provided), previous decisions take by adjudicators are neither binding on other adjudicators or a statement of law etc.I can post the complete response up if required?I have 28 days to appeal to the independent Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.

Thanks CP. I have submitted the response via their challenge page on the Kingston website. I have email confirmation and screenshots.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 23 May, 2024 09:28that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake,How would they know? Both vehicles could have parked on the same day, one with the benefit of payment and one without. How would the authority know the link you say exists between the two cars and their drivers? And it's their choice whether to exercise discretion, so don't compile reps which in any way hint at them having to do so. Remember, an adjudicator cannot exercise discretion, so IMO this is your last bite of the cherry on this point. Do not expect them to fill in gaps in your reps e.g. to check whether the other vehicle was also parked at that time. Explain every point you want to get across.I don't disagree with what you say above at all. It is totally their choice, however my experience with this council is that they will do anything they can to profit from parking so my cynical side feels their default response will always be the same, no discretion. I provided all the evidence I had to show that both vehicles were registered in my app at the time, screenshots etc, that is all I had. I could also provide copies of log books to show both are registered to people with the same last name, but I could never prove that both vehicles were not parked in the same zone to eliminate the possibility that one had paid and one had not.....As you will probably know better than me, does the discretion point still apply in this next step responding to the NTO or should the response better be focused on points of law in terms of the wording of the PCN?

Quote from: cp8759 on 06 Apr, 2024 12:23A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?@cp8759 and @Hippocrates are you able to 'spruce up' as mentioned above now I have the NTO?

Quote from: H C Andersen on 21 May, 2024 20:58OP, just stand back and think about what you submitted in your informal reps. The required tariff was not paid for the car in question. But this should be forgiven because the person making the informal reps, who claimed to be associated with this vehicle and another one, says they paid for the different vehicle. Did you:Submit a screenshot of your RingGo page showing the combination of vehicle VRMs;Put yourself in the position of the person whose mind starts as a blank canvas?Or did you think that the mere act of saying would be accepted as fact? Next time, think of what the reader would need to see for them to be persuaded to your point of view.Yes, I submitted all of the Ringgo details and referred to a previous case which I thought might help. The reason I chose not to pay the reduced fee and wait for the NTO is because I still feel that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake, that combined with the comments from Hippocrates and CP above that highlight some shortcomings in the PCN wording that might make the PCN non compliant. However I also appreciate what you say above.

Still waiting for NTO...

Quote from: cp8759 on 06 Apr, 2024 12:23A decision by an adjudicator isn't a statement of the law? I wonder if they've told the adjudicator?!?I would definitely wait for the NTO, though we'll want to spruce up the formal representations a bit.Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?Everything is in my name and up to date, yes, so it is just a case of waiting for the NTO now.Thanks for all of the responses so far. I see I was probably on the wrong track in my initial response....I am surprised local councils are not using the correct wording, seems a bit weak!