Show Posts - timewilltell

Quote from: ixxy on 24 Jan, 2026 17:09Doesn't really matter as it was unlikely you would have been successful at POPLA with the appeal grounds you used with Parkingeye. Nothing more you can do now until a letter of claim turns up which you can't afford to ignore. When that arrives come back here for further advice.Oh ok, thanks for the clarification, will do.

Quote from: InterCity125 on 24 Jan, 2026 07:51Please post up the appeal response from the operator.Thanks @InterCity125

Quote from: InterCity125 on 23 Jan, 2026 16:27Did you ever get an appeal response with a POPLA code?@InterCity125 @b789Update: I've just found the POPLA code in my emails and realised I missed the deadline Please advise on wording for a safe Letter Before Claim response (30 days, online reply only).Thanks in advance!

Quote from: InterCity125 on 23 Jan, 2026 16:27Did you ever get an appeal response with a POPLA code?No, I didn't, they didn't reply to my last correspondence asking for one. Everything I've received has been posted in this thread.

Quote from: b789 on 28 Nov, 2025 13:05You can respond to that phishing exercise with the following:QuoteRe: Parking Charge Notice [ref]Dear Sir or Madam,I refer to your letter dated 28 November 2025.First, your assertion that I “stated that [I was] not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach” is entirely false. I said no such thing. My appeal made it perfectly clear that I am the registered keeper, that I dispute the charge, and that there would be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no inferences or assumptions could be drawn.Your attempt to rewrite my appeal into something it never said is, at best, sloppily incompetent and, at worst, deliberately mendacious. It gives the distinct impression that nobody at ParkingEye has actually read my appeal and that you are simply spraying out boilerplate bluster in the hope that keepers will be bullied into naming a driver.For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be identifying the driver. There is no legal obligation on a registered keeper to disclose a driver’s identity and you have no entitlement to that personal data.You then recite selected snippets from Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as if parroting paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) somehow cures the other defects in your Notice to Keeper. It does not. Keeper liability can only arise where an operator has complied with ALL the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, not just the ones it finds convenient to quote after the event. Your NtK is not fully compliant with all of those requirements; partial or “substantial” compliance is insufficient in law. Consequently, you cannot transfer liability for this charge from the unknown driver to me as keeper.My position is therefore unchanged:• I deny any liability or contractual agreement.• I will not be naming the driver.• You cannot rely on Schedule 4 PoFA to pursue me as keeper.You must now either cancel this charge or issue a POPLA code without further prevarication. Any continued attempt to misrepresent my appeal, to misstate the effect of PoFA, or to pursue me as if I were liable despite your own non-compliant paperwork will simply form part of a formal complaint to your client and the relevant regulatory and supervisory bodies.Yours faithfully,[Name]Registered Keeper@b789 I sent the above to ParkingEye as you suggested. This "Letter Before County Court Claim" arrived from ParkingEye today (23.1.26):I'd appreciate your guidance on next steps. Thanks!

Quote from: Incandescent on 11 Jan, 2026 23:01Quote from: Hippocrates on 11 Jan, 2026 18:58Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?When I looked at this thread in late December, I got the route wrong. Then when the OP confirmed his route, it became clear that there was an advance sign and the restriction signs, so they looked "adequate", see here: -https://maps.app.goo.gl/72UKGDT54JQU2xFZ8I suppose one could argue about the adequacy of just putting up a Left Turn arrow; better to have a larger sign with the layout ahead indicating where to go.Thanks @Incandescent. Any suggestions from you or @Hippocrates on how best to word this for the representation please? Or anything else that I can add. Thanks

Quote from: Hippocrates on 11 Jan, 2026 18:58Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?No, I haven't

Quote from: Hippocrates on 11 Jan, 2026 18:20https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lambeth-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-p/msg105113/#msg105113Point 2.Thanks @HippocratesDo I select "I wish to make representations about this PCN for other reasons"?Here's my draft:"I make this formal representation against the PCN:A motorist must be given wholly correct information when to pay the reduced or full amounts sought. However, there is a clear disconnect between the law and what is stated on your website.In light of the above, please cancel the PCN."

Quote from: timewilltell on 05 Jan, 2026 14:31Quote from: Hippocrates on 05 Jan, 2026 13:21Exactly which is why we win on their website. It gets worse further down the line actually.  Prod me for a draftGood to hear, thank you. A draft would be amazing Hello @Hippocrates, just giving you a gentle prod for a draft as you suggested. Many thanks

Quote from: Hippocrates on 05 Jan, 2026 13:21Exactly which is why we win on their website. It gets worse further down the line actually.  Prod me for a draftGood to hear, thank you. A draft would be amazing

Quote from: Hippocrates on 05 Jan, 2026 12:16Please check the increase date with the PCN.Thanks for the quick reply @HippocratesThe online date is longer than shown on the PCN itself. I wondered if they added extra days on to allow for Christmas and new year - or is it an error? It's very confusing :/Online: 17.12.25 to 6.1.26 = 20 daysPCN: 17.12.25 to 31.12.25 = 14 daysThe PCN states:"The amount of penalty charge which is payable is £160. The penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.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 50% to £80."

Quote from: timewilltell on 30 Dec, 2025 15:10Quote from: Hippocrates on 30 Dec, 2025 11:15Back to the website: what are the dates re increase?  Please screenshot.Thanks Hippocrates. Is this what you're referring to?@HippocratesFirstly, Happy New Year to you!My PCN is still at discount stage but increases to £160 tomorrow (6 Jan).I'd appreciate guidance on whether I can appeal this or need to pay (presumably by the end of today before it increases).If you need further screenshots or information, please let me know.Thanks for your help!

Quote from: Hippocrates on 30 Dec, 2025 11:15Back to the website: what are the dates re increase?  Please screenshot.Thanks Hippocrates. Is this what you're referring to?

Thanks for replying and sharing those GSVs @Incandescent.Quote from: Incandescent on 29 Dec, 2025 17:25If you drove up Clayton St and turned left, you would have passed these No Entry signs:-https://maps.app.goo.gl/d1Mv4qopFjGqK4hB8GSV view is dated August 2025; are they still there ? One can see the Flying Motorbike signs to the left, but you shouldn't have even started the turn assuming the No Entry signs are still there. In addition, as you turn in to CLayton St from Kennington Road, there are cul-de-sac signs each side of the street:-https://maps.app.goo.gl/rr2m2hA3XY2cQmwx8Looking again, I definitely didn't pass no entry signs and don't think I drove along Clayton St and turned left. I was coming from SW11 and remember coming round the oval itself so I think I must have gone past Clayton St (to my left) and carried on going. Quote from: Incandescent on 29 Dec, 2025 17:25So, all in all, you can now see how use of a satnav in London is fraught with risk, being never up-to-date.  When was the last time yours was updated ?Fraught with risk indeed! I know the traffic was very heavy that day and my satnav thought it was helping by taking me on a "better" route :/ Clearly, it's not as up-to-date as it needs to be!Quote from: Incandescent on 29 Dec, 2025 17:25I see no credible appeal argument for the contravention itself, but appeals have been won in recent times based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what may be suggested. Councils have recently set-up some appalling websites for submitting representations, and wins have been just on this.Ok thank you, I have a couple of days before the deadline so I'll see if anything's suggested.

I’ve received a PCN from Lambeth (code 52, no motor vehicles) at Kennington Oval. I’m unfamiliar with the area and this is my first PCN from Lambeth. There was no intention to disregard any restriction. The council’s photos and video show “No Motor Vehicles” signs positioned on both the left and right at the entry point. I've matched the buildings and trees in the PCN stills to Clayton Street on Google Street View so I think the contravention occurred on Clayton Street, although the PCN lists the location as “Kennington Oval”. I couldn’t see any advance warning signage on street view and I think the restriction only becomes apparent at the point of entry itself. I'm not 100% sure on this but by the time the signs were visible, I was already committed to the turn and stopping or reversing would have been unsafe and impractical.I appreciate that satnav routing is not a defence and I’m not relying on that as a ground of appeal but it explains why I was routed there as an unfamiliar driver.Having seen the wording on Lambeth’s website trying to put drivers off appealing, I’m expecting them to reject any informal challenge and understand this would likely need to go to tribunal. My question is whether there are realistic grounds to contest this on signage adequacy/point-of-no-return grounds at this location or whether it would be wiser to pay at the discount stage.Any guidance appreciated. Thanks!