Jump to content

Binkyboy60

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Binkyboy60

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Ha ha - so that's why they wanted payment by 4pm tomorrow!!!
  2. Hi Guys Just come back from holiday to find this document waiting for me. It looks, as expected, that this is a begging letter from a debt collection company who also claim to be solicitors. My research shows them as a No Win No Fee Debt Collection service. Safe to assume ignore it? Regards Hi Here's the back of the letter as well Debt Collector Front.pdf Debt Collector Back.pdf
  3. Thanks, am expecting to collect some interesting letters
  4. Hi Here is the text from POPLA site Assessor summary of operator case The appellant failed to park wholly within the markings of a bay/space. Assessor summary of your case The appellant states the signage did not offer a contract. The appellant states the entrance sign does not comply with Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states the operator did not advise him correctly of the discounted amount. Assessor supporting rational for decision The terms and conditions of the site state “All vehicles are required to park within a designated parking space. By failing to comply with the terms and conditions of use, you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £60”. The operator has issued a £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant failing to park wholly within the markings of a bay/space. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site. The evidence provided illustrates that the appellant failed to park wholly within the markings of a bay/space. The appellant states the signage did not offer a contract. I note the appellant’s comments and can see from his evidence that he is referring to the section of the sign that warns motorists that they leave their vehicle on site at their own risk. This is irrelevant as this is informing motorists that if their vehicle is stolen or damaged they cannot claim from the parking operator. After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator of the signage I am satisfied that the signage is clear and informs motorists that they must park in a bay; and if they decide to remain on site without complying they will be issued with a £60 PCN. This is offering a contract to the motorists as they can leave the site within a reasonable time if they do not agree and do not want to enter into the contractual agreement. The appellant states the entrance sign does not comply with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice. Appendix B states “You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where to find more details about them” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the entrance sign on site which states “Pay and Display Pay on Fee. See notices in car park for details. From this, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Appendix B and informs motorists that there is terms and conditions on site. The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 13.4 states “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action”. This grace period would apply to appeals where the PCN was issued for payment issues. As the appellant remained parked on site not within the markings of a bay/space he failed to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator allowed an eight minute grace period for the appellant to return back to his vehicle to park correctly within a bay however, he did not therefore a PCN was issued. I do not feel that a grace period would need to be granted in this instance as the appellant would not need to leave his vehicle unattended on site to park within the markings of a bay/space. Realistically he would not need to leave his vehicle to ensure that this was complied with. The appellant states the operator did not advise him correctly of the discounted amount. I appreciate the appellant’s comments however, when assessing appeals, POPLA look at whether a parking contract was formed, and if so, whether the terms of the contract were complied with. POPLA do not become involved in payment issues as this would not have affected the parking on the day in question. The appellant will need to direct this back to the operator. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must park within the markings of a bay/space As the appellant remained on site without parking in the markings of a bay/space, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly. But the signs were from Lincoln!!!!
  5. Yes First thing I did - just as well because once you submit your comments on the operator's 'evidence' it becomes unavailable to you! Cannot believe POPLA just didn't take any notice that the signage was from Lincoln - how can that be??? And... no comeback to POPLA.....
  6. Hi Guys The POPLA 'independent' decision is in and the appeal has been rejected. They have totally ignored the fact that the evidence is from a different hospital and have taken the photos of being parked in 2 bays and signage from Lincoln as the evidence. So, bring on the debt collector's letters!!
  7. Hi Guys It's been a while but the POPLA appeal has been lodged and TPS have uploaded their 'evidence'. I have just about stopped laughing as all of their 'evidence' is from Lincoln Hospital rather than Boston! They have uploaded 4 site maps of Lincoln showing the location of various signs as well as the entrance sign to Lincoln Hospital. Their appeal document contains the following quote where it seems the writer is starting to throw their toys out of the pram - "The appellant states that the entrance sign did not conform to the BPA code well it has as we have mentioned before all our sign are approved by BPA, also our entrance sign do state terms and conditions do apply" - No evidence to show that BPA have approved their signage though! do I just say that non of the evidence is relevant as it refers to a different hospital and location? I'd like to say that they are a bunch of idiots but i don't think that would help!!
  8. Hi Quick question - do you suggest a POPLA appeal by post again like the appeal to TPS rather than using their online method? Thanks
  9. Morning Guys Have made FOI request as advised. POPLA appeal deadline is in 8 days - any ideas for a different approach to that of the appeal to TPS? Signage was mentioned as a possibility in earlier posts but I'm no expert on what it should say to confrom. I do know that the entrance sign is too high up to read and there were no other obvious ones where parked. Thanks in anticipation.
  10. That's a good 'spot' renegadeimp - hadn't noticed that one! Should I ask the NHS Trust for the number of PCN's issued at Pilgrim Hospital so far this year as well as for sight of their contract with TPS in my FOI request?
  11. Thanks Homer67 FOI request on its way tomorrow along with contact with local press and social media
×
×
  • Create New...