Hi ericsbrother, Thanks for clarifying that. I will now proceed with my appeal and will update this thread when POPLA has reached their verdict. Many thanks until then:-)

Hi ericsbrother, Many thanks for your swift response . I am going to do the POPLA appeal this weekend, and just wanted to make sure I understand fully what I need to do in order to make the best of your advice so far. In regard to asking for sight of the contract between the landowner and the parking company, as they state in their response that they will enter into no further correspondence, do I just need to make this point to POPLA, or do I need to write to ask the company anyway? In regard to the making point about the overstaying, I take that this is that I cannot have overstayed because no contract was entered into. Is this correct? Finally, if I may, is there any other advice or guidance that you could give or point me toward in regard to making a successful appeal to POPLA? sincerely, Liondeer

Hi All, It's been some time since I was here, but I now have a reply from the Parking Company so I need some advice again. Ericsbrother and armadillo71 were very helpful before, so thanks again to them now. I have attached my letter to the Parking Company of the 19/11/2015, and theirs back to me of the 27th/12/15 (I don't know why it took so long to reach me). In my letter I followed the advice given and pointed out that the NTK was not compliant with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, and that the signage at the entrance constituted at 'invitation to treat' and not a contract. As you can read in their response, they have challenged both of these reasons and sent me an POPLA code so I can make an appeal if I so choose. I do want to do that, but it would seem that I need to add my detail and substance to my appeal in order to have a chance of success. SO any advice on making my POPLA appeal would be very much appreciated, if anyone has the time. Sincerely, Liondeer ThemToMe.pdf MeToThem.pdf

Hi ericsbrother - thanks for your further input. I will do as you advise and follow the process - if people like you can be so helpful the least I can do is help myself. I'll post back when they respond.

Hi armadillo71 - thanks for your reply. The NTK only mentions 'Care Parking' as far as I can see. I will add your advice to that given by ericsbrother when submitting my appeal to the company, which I intend to do tomorrow. I just hope the whole thing doesn't become a long dragged out process as my health is poor at the moment unfortunately,and it annoys me that companies like this can waste so much of the public's time and energy.

Hi armadillo71, - thank you for looking at my thread . I have followed your suggestion and added a redacted copy of the NTK. In regard to the non-compliance issue, is it necessary to point out to the parking company where they are not compliant - and if so, could you be so kind as indicate where they are in error. I have looked at the document in your link and to be frank I am having trouble ploughing my way through it and linking it to the NTK that I received. Many thanks,

Hi ericsbrother - thanks for your reply and the clear explanation of where they have gone wrong. Your help and the time you have spent is really appreciated. So it sounds like I only have to write to tell them that the claimed offence did not occur due to the fact that sign at the entrance constitutes an 'invitation to treat' and not a contract (if they understand the difference...). I suppose I could also let them know that POPLA is cognisant of the difference and would therefore would be expected to uphold my appeal, should they force me to make one. Is there anything else you would add? I have also managed to upload (hopefully) the NTK as you requested. I have checked and it is word for word the same as one sent to 60's child a couple of months ago. I'll update the post when I have a reply, unless you have any further advice.

Hi ericsbrother - many thanks for expertise and your encouraging reply which was good to read . So I take it that the fact that sign at the entrance states to see notices in the car park for further details makes no difference to their claim. If so, is this because the entrance sign is legally required to contain all the relevant details of the contract being offered, including all of its conditions? I should be able to post up the NTK tomorrow sometime, but like I said it was exactly the same as the one posted up by 60's child in the thread you also advised on. Also, in your experience how often do these parking companies back down when confronted with what amounts to their own lack of professionalism, or do you expect I will have to take it to POPLA in the long run? I ask because I am not well at the moment and I am hoping this will not entail a long fight/ Many thanks again.

Thanks honeybee13 Hopefully ericsbrother or someone similarly erudite will be along to give me some advice....

Many thanks honeybee13. I clicked on the link but no new thread appeared - will it be up shortly?

Hi ericsbrother, many many thanks for your quick reply and your advice on how to refer to myself in any appeal correspondence. Before I follow your advice and start a new thread (which presents problems in itself as I don't have access to a scanner to add documents at present - I will have access on Monday) maybe I can tell what information I have and then start a new thread if that remains your advice. 1) The location and signage is exactly the same as the pictured by 60's child. 2) The letter I have received is exactly the same, word for word, as that received by 60's child, with the exception of the dates and times. 3) My 'offence' was committed on the 06/11/2015 - I received the letter this morning, the 14th. The letter states that my entry time 19.45 and my departure at 21.23. This amounts to total of 1 hour 38 minutes (I thought I had two hours) However as you will have read from the pic of the signiage in post 12 above, at 8pm to 8am only 10 minutes parking is allowed - which I did indeed exceed. I would also add that I have parked and shopped at the car park many times, but under the illusion that I had 'two hours free parking' as stated on the sign at the car park entrance. It does say on that sign to see notices in the car park for further details, but to be frank the small print is very hard to read when you are driving into the car park up the very steep short (one car length) ramp with possibly traffic turning in behind you. I have read your advice to 60's child above in regard to the approach to take when writing to POPLA - I am right in presuming that your advice would be the same in my case? Many thanks again.

Hi - I also have just been sent a PCN for this site, requesting £100 or £60 if I pay early, and am considering how to proceed. So I wondered if any progress has been made following the guidance provided by ericsbrother? Many thanks.

Hi 68904, That's fantastic 68904:D - many thanks. Clearly the've been out and repainted, but not got it right again! I can now show them "before and after pics" - and both are wrong and invalid. It's good to have pictures of the Woodsley ned too, I didn't draw attention to this in my letter to LCC, but I will next time. I hope they'll accept the pics of being of there though, as there are no distinguishing features, except perhaps the car with registration number. You seem to know the regulations and markings very well - have you also worked in this field? And you concur that I have a strong case, and should fight on? I'm offline till tomorrow evening, but I think the next step is to wait for the NtO, and make my appeal, using your pics, if I may, and thosoe of LoneRover. Thanks again! Liondeer

Thanks Jamberson and TheDogsBollocks, for shedding yet more light on the internal workings, or lack thereof of councils. My case should be further strengthened by 68904's return to the location for updated pics, including the end of the bay. Thanks for that 68904:D. If you ever a ticket in Lancaster, I'll do the same for you! If I win in the end, I think CC's should offer compensation to wasting everybody's time in this way! Cheers Liondeer

Thanks for the insight and advice, Jamberson and the TheDogsBollocks. Your views confirm my decision to fight on. As I said previously, I actually combined your approaches in my letter to LCC, giving them a simple statement of case, as follows: "I challenge a parking ticket, no LS15069465, issued on Belle Vue Road, Woodhouse, on 17/11/09 by CEO Pa00092 on the grounds of non-compliant bay markings, specifically, that one end (I believe the beginning) of the parking bay was not marked, having being obscured, it would appear by some errant tarmaccing. As I do not live in Leeds an associate of mine from the consumer action group has kindly provided me with dated digital clear and complete photographic evidence of this lack of marking. Moreover, it is my understanding that the signage on Belle Vue Road is rendered inapplicable, and in fact illegal, considering that it is not supported by the necessary prescribed road markings. As such it’s presence exposes LCC to litigation and makes the sign inapplicable in the serving or prosecution of a parking ticket. I therefore look forward to receiving as soon as possible official notification of the cancellation of the parking offence. I thank you for your time and attention on this matter." I then went on to give a very slightly modified version of the TheDogsBollocks letter. What I could have done differently is to send the photos - the main reason I didn't due to the cost and time of printing them out, which I thought might be needless expenditure as my case seemed to be so clear, and my argument both simply put, and legally put. Since I am going to fight on, is there anything else I need to make a very strong case.I have the legal argument, I have the photos, with dates, sent to me by LoneRover today - anything else? Also, who ajudicates on these matters - I presume it is an impartial third party.... Cheers Liondeer