Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bella54

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
I've edited the post now, thank you.

Welcome Lib19

The PCN looks like its still in the within 28 Days Appeal time.

keeping checking in on your post here and someone will respond with what the next steps are.

In the mean time have a read at some of the other threads and posts to find some similar to your case.

2
Was the original a windscreen notice? Presume you appealed to the parking co and they rejected?

Yes - the first appeal was direct from the ticket that I received on my windscreen. They rejected it, provided a POPLA code which I am now also appealing and just received this NTK also..

https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/

probably best to post the PCN (Parking charge Notice) a copy of the Ntk notice to keeper with the dates visible (redacting your personal details)
copy of rejection Letter/email
copy of your POPLA Appeal Letter/email you've sent so other's with more experience on here can see the wording and offer some further guidance

3
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking fine at my own home
« on: March 01, 2026, 03:54:53 pm »
So there's bays designated A-Z and then roughly 10 "V" bays.

We have 2 parking permits one says "Bay 'X' only" the other says "Bay 'X' or V only" one of my tickets was because my partner was parked in our dedicated bay and there was no space in a V bay for me. The other one I was parked in our dedicated bay and forgot to put my permit on the dash.
[/quote]

If your HA has issued 2 parking permits to you one "X only" and one "V" for visitors bays on site, then it might be worth contacting them directly to see if they can get these cancelled.

Also see if you can find a NtK (notice to Keeper) that should have been sent to you too as what you've uploaded so far states photo's have been taken by an operator, which you should be given the opportunity to view.

Might be worth submitting a SAR's request to PCM or even HA if they are the ones who issue the permits?

PCM offer a "Virtual Visitors permit App" service also so I'd be making some enquires with both HA and PCM in the interim to avoid getting anymore of these for now.


4
The non compliant NtK is immediately fatal to the operators case - I'd just focus on that and maybe one or two other points of rebuttal which you can demonstrate - in other words, don't use subjectiveness.

In fact, if it was me, I'd comment purely on the non complaint NtK because I do not want to give the assessor the opportunity to 'skip over' that awkward point by offering up side issues.

Thank you again.

No point in complicating the complicated   ;D

5
ECP have asked for ID and proof of ownership of vehicle for the SAR - can this be used against me or should I send it.
Thank you

Is the V5 Doc in your name?

also worth checking that the address is correct and up to date on it too.
 
In my personal experiences with submitting SAR's requests to any company is that they can stall the "1 calendar month" to "supply the data" process set by The Information Commissioners Office Legislation, GDPR, by asking for ID and extra documents, and sometimes will not even start the process of sending anything to you until they have the ID.

My understanding is that They should start the "1 calendar month" from the date you 1st made the request.






6
Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.


Once again the operator asserts that the NtK is PoFA compliant when it is not.

In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific text and legal choices as specified by Schedule 4 of PoFA.

In this instance, the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) are not satisfied by the operators NtK.

To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as follows;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the current time, Euro Car Parks (the creditor) does not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver.

The keeper is therefore INVITED TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES  (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)

Or

If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass this notice onto the driver (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators NtK.

The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for example, placing the information at random points throughout the NtK since this would not present the keeper with the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.

The Euro Car Parks NtK never states the mandatory wording required by para. 9(2)(e).

The Euro Car Parks NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges'.

The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two limbed legal invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.

If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice is present on the NtK then, I would ask that either Euro Car Parks or the POPLA assessor point out the required statutory wording?

In order to rely on PoFA, all requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) must be met - the wording is not subjective, it is 100% objective in nature.

The missing wording is immediately fatal to the operators case.


Thank you intercity125.

Still no wiser as to the "land owner" of this site is really?? (as the contract is heavily redacted)
   
We've got your comments ready to go on to POPLA's site.

Should we add that we're reliant on the details as stipulated in our POPLA Appeal Letter PDF?

just been looking through the 34pgs of doc's Euro Car Parks has sent and there's also a photo that they've submitted showing the Tesco store and where they're signage actually is placed.

Is it worth adding a sentence to the comments using they're photographic evidence against them by suggesting that this site's signage, is misleading to Tesco customers and is clearly making substantial financial gains particularly at this site also??

Its a point that we didn't raise in the POPLA Appeal letter

The evidence Euro Car Parks have supplied POPLA is very vague & generic.

We're also aware that POPLA is not likely to address this matter in our favour anyway  :o

Just wondered if these points need airing at the POPLA stage or holding onto them for later down the "well travelled road" ??

7
Mediation is a mandatory step in the court process which precedes the requirement for the claimant to pay the court fee.

The claimant’s court fee of £28 is pretty irrelevant compared to the cost of paying for someone to travel to and attend your local court. They just choose to bail at this point (usually!).

Thank you jfollows, so we can now just monitor our post and collect the Debt collection Management company's letters, and not respond (ignore) for the next few months

but Post back here once we receive an official Letter of Claim LOC from OPS solicitors, and fill in & send a defence of claim,

Attend the Mandatory Medication (usually attended online? Is this usually conducted on Microsoft Teams??

Ask for the name and professional title of OPS representative who should also be in attendance??

offer "£0.00" as a settlement offer??

If OPS representatives reject this offer, they then have to proceed the case to court and pay the filing fee of £28 and they're representatives cost and fees to attend a county court in our local area of the country?? (which is probably only financially worth them doing if there are multiple PCN against the vehicle/driver/Keeper??)

8
Quote
Think we're now about to embark on the "threatening bailiff and fake CCJ" stage?
The debt collector stage is the next one, yes.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to "fake CCJ" - these companies do obtain real CCJs, from people ignoring court claims, or losing in court and then not paying up. No risk of that if you follow the process.

Thank you DWMB2.

We've read up a lot on here and how this "can" end up in a court for an application for an effective CCJ, so we're totally committed to following the the processes here.

The key facts needs to be remembered in this case is that the "driver" has not been identified, so were not sure how "NO Keeper liability" plays out in an actual case that actually get into a court room?

Also given the facts of the the alleged contravention of period of parking that was observed by OPS was less that 1 minute!! 19:33:26 - 19:34:21 (54 seconds)

Will we need to go to the "mediation" stage also after the Debit collectors letters?
and are OPS court filing cost's still roughly £28? for them to have to pay to even get this into a court room?

9
Morning all

We've had an email response from IAS on Thursday 26th Feb so are posting it here for collective thoughts on what the next step is? but please hold your tummy's and bladder's whilst reading as it made laugh uncontrollably.  ;D

Think we're now about to embark on the "threatening bailiff and fake CCJ" stage?


Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case.

In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Appellant's vehicle has been recorded as parking on private land where the signage clearly states that parking must be in a marked bay. The Appellant's vehicle is parked on double yellow lines outside of a marked bay.
The Notice to Keeper is POFA compliant and gives all the relevant details required and is served within the required time frame. The Appellant is being held liable as the keeper.

There is a consideration period allowed for motorists to read the signage and decide if they are able to comply with the terms, but once the driver leaves the vehicle and makes use of the site that consideration period ends as the driver is deemed to have accepted the terms.

Having considered all the relevant issues raised and the evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the Appellant should have seen the prominent signage, the Appellant chose to ignore the terms, and the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed. "


As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours sincerely,


The Independent Appeals Service
Independent Appeals Service
PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR
w: www.theias.org
 




10
Hi All

We've received an email today from POPLA informing us that they've received documents from Euro Car Parks (which is 34pgs, mostly photos of signage and exerts heavily redacted of the so called land owners contract???)

POPLA are informing us that we have 7 days to comment on the documents.

Are there any specific pages we need to load on to here for viewing??

Can anyone Pleas advise of what the next steps in the POPLA appeal are and what happens if we don't add any comments after the 7days from today have expired? 

11
Hi All,

Just a nudge on this issue, as they're "28 days beginning" with the date on the rejection letter is up this Sunday 22nd February, so we just need some guidance as to how to draft the reps to London Tribunals and if we need to get photos of the YBJ??

Do we fill in the forms sent with the rejection letter and post off? or can the appeal be completed on line to London Tribunals?


12
Morning All

Just checking to see if we'll need photo's of the Yellow box junction of the area for this London Tribunal Appeal?

or will it be enough to Appeal the wording of the NTK & Enfield's rejection reply letter to defend this?

We think we've got till 23rd Feb to put something in writing to London tribunals and not sure quite how to start the Appeal letter?

Any suggestions will be gratefully appriciated
 

13
Hi

Just an update.

POPLA Appeal Letter sent this morning. Just put "other" as reasoning for appealing.

screenshots taken, and confirmation email received. :)

we'll post up the response once received.

Thank you all for your support and help here with this so far. ;)

14
Device problem with internet but if that is what they have written it is tribunal time.

Yes, bottom of Pg1 and top of pg2 states

"The extract you refer to from 'London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 - part2, Section 4 is the legislation for Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions. The PCN itself makes clear reference in that representations must be made within 28 days beginning with the date on the notice or take advantage of the discount if paid within 14 days."

If this is what Mr Chips is referencing...then we're happy to more forward to tribunal ;)

15
Morning

Just trying to send the POPLA Appeal letter on the POPLA website.

Should we select "I was not the driver or the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking" this has a sub section stating

(you were not the driver at the time of the alleged improper parking)

this option then asks "can you upload any evidence to support our position"

so thinking we should attach a further PDF copy of the POPLA Appeals letter??

or should we avoid this option completely and just select "other"???

There's also an "additional Information" part of info gathering questions that states are for "data analysis" that states can be left blank, but if you start them, you can't erase.

So should we just keep this simple and just use "other" then add the POPLA Appeals letter, a photo of the signage and let them get on with it??

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5