DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25064--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 5, 2024, 4:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I absolutely see both of you points and I feel that it would be
to leave less substantial points towards the end of my appeal.
That being said, besides the operators failure to display the
correct time upon do I actually have any other meritorious
points? (In your opinion)
Honestly I am so annoyed I rushed into my initial appeal and
identified the driver. Life lesson I guess.
#Post#: 25065--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 5, 2024, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Harmonyguru link ---
>
> That being said, besides the operators failure to display the
correct time upon do I actually have any other meritorious
points? (In your opinion)
>
--- End Quote ---
All the points mentioned so far are worth including. I'd say the
machine not working is the strongest specific to the case, as it
was entirely outside your control, and an error on their part,
that you have evidence to support (include this in the appeal).
#Post#: 25113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 6, 2024, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this important... looking at my PCN again the address on the
back is DIFFERENT to the address on Google Maps. My PCN has the
address as 60 Bishopsgate street, fiveways, Birmingham B15 1DB.
Turns out they've used the address for the car park OPPOSITE the
one I parked in. The address according to Google for the car
park I used is Tennant St, Birmingham B15 1DA. Before you ask,
yes I paid for parking in the correct car park. Both are
operated by Euro Car Parks. Does this help my case?
Nevermind, I think that they both must operate under the same
address as my receipt also has that address.
#Post#: 25120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: b789
Date: June 6, 2024, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The address on the NtK is important because it must be accurate
enough to identify the relevant land. Any ambiguity is an appeal
point and also a defence point in that, an address that does not
identify the relevant land, renders the NtK non-compliant with
PoFA and so there can be no keeper liability.
#Post#: 25131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 6, 2024, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it worth me adding the screenshots of similarly damning
reviews of the car park that I sent previously or is this
unnecessary? They are both taken from car parks operated by Euro
Car Parks
See earlier post for images.
#Post#: 25132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 6, 2024, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't. Focus on hard evidence, rather than the unverifiable
opinions of others.
#Post#: 25136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 6, 2024, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, here it is. A link to my appeal. I apologise in advance to
[member=26]b789[/member] for choosing to keep in the 'no
invitation to the keeper'. I just felt like if there was any
chance something might get missed or the slightest chance POPLA
still see it as noteworthy it would be worth keeping. Plus with
the ambiguity of the address it helps to bolster this argument.
Note I have NOT sent this. I am still waiting to hear from the
landowners in the hope I can have the charge removed.
POPLA APPEAL DRAFT
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pqub1yb25y2p12z0uixam/POPLA-APPEAL-2411454240-Edit.pdf?rlkey=4bg4dzuvbpnpgl4w480cu04xt&st=am6ccdsx&dl=0
No such thing as bad criticism so don't be shy.
#Post#: 25138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 6, 2024, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you have already told Euro Car Parks that you were the driver
when you originally appealed then PoFA and keeper liability are
irrelevant.
Including it serves only to distract from your relevant points,
in my view.
#Post#: 25163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: b789
Date: June 6, 2024, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Without scouring back through the thread, if the driver was
identified, inadvertently or otherwise, then there is no point
mentioning no keeper liability because the driver is always
liable.
You can only invoke no keeper liability if the drivers identity
remains unknown to the PPC.
#Post#: 25184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 7, 2024, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=26]b789[/member] and
[member=103]DWMB2[/member] it sounds like the consensus is to
drop this point. Do I still include the point that the addresses
on the NTK don't match the address of the parking location or is
this also nullified by identifying the diver?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page