DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3310--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 15, 2023, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, exactly, I think we are all on the same page i.e. the PCN
must bear all necessary info if they want the benefit of POFA
thus if they have the address just as St Peter's Court it's no
good later saying "well, the full address is on our website".
This is what I meant by saying "they cannot later adduce further
evidence or information". Anyway, now sitting back to see what
they come back with......
#Post#: 3349--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 16, 2023, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> Anyway, now sitting back to see what they come back with......
>
--- End Quote ---
If you appealed online, keep an eye on your email spam folder.
#Post#: 4118--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 30, 2023, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now had a response from Parking Eye and it is rather
ambivalent. They have not addressed the issue of the vague
location at all. They have simply noted that I have not
identified the driver and have given me 28 days in which to do
so with a vague threat that they might reject the appeal if I
don't play ball. To my mind, the vague location argument holds
good whether it was me or the unidentified driver who was
driving. Seems a bit of a holding tactic and I am minded just to
ignore rather than respond and say "I am not identifying the
driver but what about the question of vague location?".
Any thoughts?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 4126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 30, 2023, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a fairly common response. They're hoping you name the
driver so that your argument that they have failed to comply
with the requirements of PoFA by not specifying the location is
no longer relevant (PoFA only matters in circumstances where
they are seeking to recover the charge from the keeper).
Don't tell 'em.
#Post#: 4128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 30, 2023, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So just ignore rather than tell them I am not telling them?
#Post#: 4132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 30, 2023, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's up to you, the end result should be the same
#Post#: 4140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 30, 2023, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
PCN *********
I refer to the above dated 1 August and my appeal dated ****.
In the PCN you set out 4 options as follows:
To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
To name the driver;
To appeal;
To pay and appeal.
I elected to appeal which then gave you 35 days to serve your
substantive response. You have not done so, instead you have
sent a reply asking again for the driver's details and implying
that if I did not comply this would (presumably adversely)
affect your consideration of my appeal.
Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of Practice
and ranks alongside your 4th 'option' of paying 'your' parking
charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under the
code.
As your response is extra-procedural you cannot rely upon it to
relieve you of your obligation to respond within the 35-day
period and I look forward to receiving this reply.
#Post#: 4198--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 31, 2023, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HCA
I rather like that. I know you of course from Pepipoo and your
attention to detail is unsurpassed. Thanks for the heads-up on
what is and is not permitted for private parking tickets, a
subject on which I am far less well-informed than council PCNs.
I will send an e-mail along those lines unless anyone else has a
view.
#Post#: 4201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 31, 2023, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you're minded to respond to ParkingEye' fishing letter then
I'd agree that Hcandersen's response would achieve the desired
aim.
#Post#: 4202--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 31, 2023, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have beefed it up a little. Here is my intended reply:
--- Quote ---
> I refer to the above PCN dated 1 August and my appeal dated 14
August.
>
> In the PCN you set out 4 options as follows:
>
> To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
> To name the driver;
> To appeal;
> To pay and appeal.
>
> I elected to appeal which then gave you 35 days to serve your
substantive response. You have not done so, instead you have
sent a reply asking again for the driver's details and implying
that if I did not comply my appeal "may well be rejected". This
appears to tie your consideration of the merits of my appeal to
my willingness to supply the driver's details, which I am under
no legal obligation to provide. You are effectively fettering
your discretion.
>
> Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of
Practice and ranks alongside your 4th 'option' of paying the
parking charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under
the code.
>
> As your response is extra-procedural you cannot rely upon it
to relieve you of your obligation to respond within the 35-day
period, addressing my substantive point regarding location. I
look forward to receiving this reply.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page