Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.

Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article

The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article

deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  

Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease.