Show Posts - P4NDEMIK

also i do have a question if you dont mind me asking, i was under the impression that my car only has one registered keeper, me, and only one insured driver, me and only me, and since this is the case, if my car gets a fine in a parking spot, or a speeding fine, my only option is to name the keeper, if i dont identify the keeper, i am admitting it wasnt me driving, and with that cant they automatically say to me that i lent my car to someone ilegally? as in like the "driver" of the vehicle isnt the keeper and isnt a registered insured driver on the vehicle? i thought thats how it went, that if i am the only driver, either i admit that i was driving and get done for the fine or whatever, or say i wasnt driving and then get done for knowingly allowing someone to drive my car uninsured?

once again, chatgpt told me 10 minutes, its so stupid that i relied on them. im a relatively new driver and have never had a ticket before, i am careful where i park and was shocked when i found out i got a ticket that i didnt even think to go and check if there exists a forum for this kind of stuff. but alas, here we are. So if im getting this correctly, lets say POPLA reject my appeal, the operator will then send me a letter again demanding payment, your saying legally i dont have to listen to it and pay and nothing can happen as they have no power to demand a payment from me? What if they go through a debt collector, i know of companies that will sell certain debts to debt collecting companies, what if that happens here? i thought they had powers to remove items from me in total value of the amount i owe do they not?

yeah so i did not think that i didnt have to admit that i parked there, there are photos of me getting in and out of the car so i thought they could identify me that way, but my appeal to them was this:I want to respond to the operator’s evidence, particularly their reliance on Vine v Waltham Forest and their statements about the consideration period.The operator repeatedly cites Vine v Waltham Forest, but the principle from that case actually supports my position. Vine makes it clear that a driver cannot be bound by contractual terms they did not see and could not reasonably be expected to see. At the material time it was dark, the signage was unlit, and none of the signs were visible from the bay I reversed into. The operator has provided photographs of signs and their locations, but crucially they have not provided any evidence showing what the signage looked like from my parking position at night. Their images do not demonstrate visibility from the driver’s viewpoint. Under Vine, simply showing that signage exists somewhere in the car park is not enough; the signs must be positioned and illuminated so a driver would reasonably see and understand them before a contract can be formed. In this case, that was not possible.The BPA Code of Practice strengthens this point. Section 19 states that signs must be “conspicuous and legible” so that drivers can easily read and understand them. Appendix B further states that signage must be visible and understandable in the lighting conditions in which enforcement takes place. Since the operator’s own timestamps show this incident occurred in darkness, they were required to show signage was illuminated or otherwise visible in those conditions. They have not done so. The unlit, poorly positioned signs meant I could not reasonably see or read any terms, so no contract could be formed.The operator also claims that the consideration period does not apply because I left the vehicle, but this contradicts the BPA Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states:“The driver must be allowed a minimum of 10 minutes to read the signs and decide whether they accept the contract.”Section 13.2 adds:“You must allow the driver a reasonable consideration period to decide if they accept the terms.”Nothing in the BPA Code requires the motorist to stay inside the car or remain stationary. The consideration period applies to all drivers. The operator’s own timestamped photos, submitted in evidence, show that my total time on site was approximately 8 minutes, which is comfortably within the mandatory minimum 10-minute consideration period. A parking charge cannot be issued until a driver has been given that time to read and consider the terms. Regardless of what I was doing during those 8 minutes, the BPA rules prevent any contract from being formed within that period.In summary, the signage was not visible at night from my parking position, meaning Vine v Waltham Forest prevents the formation of any contract. The operator has not shown that the signs were illuminated or legible in the actual conditions at the time, which is required under Section 19 and Appendix B of the BPA Code. Their own evidence proves I was on site for only 8 minutes, which is well within the mandatory consideration period under Sections 13.1 and 13.2. For these reasons, the Parking Charge Notice has not been issued in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice and must be cancelled.As for what the sign says, this is a link to the evidence they provided as to what the sign says https://ibb.co/Y7JnGDwX this is the picture they posted as "proof" that signs are clear at the location

https://ibb.co/F4H29JJDhttps://ibb.co/1fRYstW2https://ibb.co/6RvjCT0Nhttps://ibb.co/xqXFJVdqhttps://ibb.co/JRGmj6mhhttps://ibb.co/V0Z44K8Ghttps://ibb.co/99PhGB8Qthese are all the things they uploaded as evidence, alongside pictures showing the times i entered and left but they are just the same pictures, all in all they agreed that i had only stayed for 8 minutes. they also posted pictures of the signs they designed but no actual pictures of signs on walls or anything

Hey guys, i have recently received a parking ticket after i parked on private land (unknowingly) at about 11:30 PM a few weeks ago. I had gone to get a cup of tea, and then returned to my car and left. In the ticket they sent me, they included photos showing and proving that i parked there, and it even states from they own evidence that i had only stayed there for 8 minutes. The company is called Secure Parking Solutions. I had made an appeal with the company first, showing that i had only stayed 8 minutes and that the BPA rules state that a 10 minute mandatory period has to be enforced. They rejected that appeal, so my only option was to go through POPLA. After submitting that, along with their own evidence showing that i was there for only 8 minutes, and stating that the signs were unclear, which they were as it was shops behind me and the way i reverse parked i saw no signs, it was night and none of them were illuminated either so even upon returning to my car i saw no signs.Anyway, they have responded to my POPLA appeal (the company) and they basically stated that a mandatory period is only supposed to be given in pay and display car parks and that the mandatory grace period doesnt apply if i leave my vehicle, i have then replied back stating that they never provided any photos of their own signs, just designs showing what is printed on the sings, and even on their map showing the placement of signs it shows that if you reverse park, no sign ever is in front of you or at the entrance, just on the wall behind.Since the company rejected my first appeal, and now said what they said about the period not applying if i walk away, i am getting a bit worried as to what they chances are that POPLA will accept my appeal.Anybody had any experience like this? i will be happy to answer any questions in the comments.