Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 13/01/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    1 Date of the infringement - 7/10/19 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10/10/19 3 Date received - 12/10/19 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] - 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Y 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] - Y Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - Y 7 Who is the parking company? - CPM (UK Car Park Management) 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Trinity Park, Birmingham ( I was on a road, not a car park) For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - IPC Hi everyone Apologies for the delay in writing this. My circumstances are as follows In October last year, I pulled into Trinity Park after leaving Birmingham International Train station on the airport complex. As you come out of the train station, you come to a roundabout. The first left is Trinity Park. Apparently it’s a private road, but there are no signs today tis as you enter. (research shows that years ago there were barriers and a manned hut in the middle of the road. These are no longer there) I actually turned in there by mistake, not realising it was n fact a cut de sac. I was trying to exit the complex. As I entered the road I saw a male in a car look at me, and as i drove past him he immediately did a u turn and followed me. I was a Police officer for 22 years, and just notice this type of thing. I then quickly realised i was in a cup de sac and needed to turn around. I did this at the end of the cul de sac, and noticed this male then did the same. It made no sense to me that he would, from the entrance of a cul de sac, go back in to then turn back around to come back out. It was clear to me he was following me and was suspicious. I pulled over at the side of the road briefly, so he would have to drive past me. However, he didn’t, and was sat in his vehicle about 10 metres behind me. I was watching him in my rear view mirror, which is when i saw him put his phone out of the window and start taking photos. This was now beyond strange, so i got out of my car and walked up to his to challenge him. When i got to his vehicle it absolutely stunk of cannabis. I asked what he was doing , an all he said was " you can't park there". I said I wasn't actually parked, but had come to see what he was up to. I them pointed out his car stunk of cannabis, to which he silly said " so?" I then took his photograph, to which he said I couldn’t. I pointed out that I could, at which point he sped off (the photos of him and his vehicle have hopefully uploaded successfully) Within a week I received a PCN. I immediately appealed stating that I didn’t consider I was parked. I had pulled over due to the operator’s suspicious activity, which then led to me having to leave my vehicle to challenge him. I provided my photos, told them about the drugs and that I was a police officer, and more than happy to go to court and give evidence around this. I also said that I would be asking to see his business insurance for the vehicle in court. I also pointed out that in the photo they had of me, my brake lights were still activated, suggesting I had indeed just pulled over on the road. This appeal was rejected, they said they would raise my concerns about the operative and the company may be n contact around this ( they haven't to date) I then had an email about another appeal to an adjudicator. I put very little details on this one, saying id really just like to go to court and cross examine the operative. I also explained that I am a qualified drugs expert witness, entitled to give evidence of opinion in court cases. I would now start research on this case, and be charging my day rate to every day I spent on it. A few days ago I had a further email to say my appeal had been allowed. Ill paste the reply below. The crux of it is, which hopefully may help others going forward, is that where i was "parked" it was impossible to see the signs saying no parking. Here is their reply to my appeal: The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish. The Appellant contends that the Parking Charge should not have been issued as he only pulled over due to the suspicious behaviour of the parking attendant. The operator submits that the signage is clear and the Appellant should have seen this signage and been aware that he was unable to stop on the roadway. The one sign I can see in the photographs submitted is some 10 metres in front of the Appellant's vehicle and could not be read by the Appellant from where he stopped. As the operator has failed to submit a site plan, I cannot be sure whether the Appellant had already passed further signs indicating the restrictions, or where in fact the restrictions start and end on the roadway. As much as the Appellant wishes to attend court on this matter, due to the lack of any further evidence submitted by the operator, I cannot be satisfied that the Parking Charge was properly issued, therefore I am allowing this appeal. "
  2. 1 point
    Hopefullythen the local police will go to the location in an unmarked car and torment him by doing what you di as in stopping, and walking over to his motor.
  3. 1 point
    I laughed several times reading this. Brilliant!!
  4. 1 point
    He did this happened a week before I retired. I was gonna pull him out of the car, but he sped off before I could Not my Force area, but have emailed west mids with the red and his pic, along with the details.
  5. 1 point
    Excellent result. well done It appears that District Judges are casting a baleful eye on robOclaims by PPC's at klast
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    Excellent. You were lucky that someone found the contract and was on parade before you. HB
  8. 1 point
    Hey @BankFodder, Thanks so much for the very detailed info. I really, really appreciate it! I am absolutely thrilled and shocked to say that PackLink has come back to me, and they have approved my claim, so will be sending through compensation - £842 for the laptop, and £7.66 for the postage on Wednesday when they make all their payments. You could knock me over with a feather that that was the outcome, considering they specifically say they don't cover notebooks. Thanks again for your time and all your help - I really appreciate it!
  9. 1 point
    Yes, that's the "guideline" fine. Have a look towards the bottom of this document: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/offences-appropriate-for-imposition-of-fine-or-discharge/3-offences-appropriate-for-imposition-of-fine-or-discharge/#Use_of_mobile_telephone You will see the offence listed in the left hand column. You will see the maximum fine as "L3". That's level three and is £1,000. Don't worry about that - it's simply the maximum fine the law allows in any circumstances. In the next column you will see "6". That's the number of points that must be imposed (you will note it went up from 3 to 6 in March 2017). Finally in the Right hand column you will see "A". That is the recommended "starting point" (which is almost always the actual fine in straightforward cases like yours). It means "Band A" which is half a week's net income. (Band B is one week and Band C is 1.5 weeks, there are also higher bands which are used infrequently). You can see these bands explained if you click on the arrow to the right of "Band Ranges" at the bottom of the page. Rather than ask for "leniency" you should explain the circumstances (forgot to send licence in, etc.) and specifically ask if you might be sentenced at the Fixed Penalty level as per the guidance they have. Grovel a bit and explain that you realise you were at fault, the difficulties were of your own making, sorry to waste court time, etc. etc. but you would be grateful if they would overlook your silly error. Best of Luck !!!
  10. 1 point
    Have you sent a CCA Request yet...? Would be interesting to see what comes back...
  11. 1 point
    and don't forget moriarty never turn up so should be a walk in the park.
  12. 1 point
    Hit post/submit too early but yes excellent result! I have now had the email confirming what was said too Thank you for all your help on this - I can be very harsh/keyboard warrior but your responses make mine look like childs talk so I can only say a lot of the type of language/wording/aggressiveness you used for me to send back to them is what ultimately got me a cracking result.
  13. 1 point
    bear it in mind but dont rely on it entirely to beat them off with your case.
  14. 1 point
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology figures. https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/10/maps-show-australias-temperatures-risen-last-100-years-12039524/ Sobering, and I know the deniers will go on about how Britain was a tropical rainforest once, but those were natural changes over millions of years, not a couple of hundred. Nasa have an even more sobering infographic than the above, it's worth Googling. Denying man made climate change is understandable, as the consequences are terrifying, and it's easier to deny it than make the radical changes we need. However it is real and happening now.
  15. 1 point
    As usual, the appeals people ignore all the inconvenient bits of the law that side with the appellant and find on your behalf on a matter that they have ignored for years despite proof of insufficient signage being presented in those cases. It is usual for the IAS to say that they just believe that the operator is telling the truth without even looking at any evidence from them and certainly not providing that evidence to the appellant to rebut if necessary even though the operator gets to see yours Glad that you won your appeal but it shows that it is not only the cannabis thak stinks at the IPC Should others caught out at the same place appeal on the same grounds? I would certainly use this as evidence that there is insufficient signage ( the IAS ignored the fact tyat it is prohibitive, fails the 10 minute grace period etc) but not at this stage as CPM have clearly not learnt anything from this.
  16. 1 point
    ouch that sounds painful. i'll make sure my carrot doesn't go floppy for sure...
  17. 1 point
    Thank you. I passed it all on. I hope something get sorted out.
  • Create New...