just uploaded (i hope) surb-health 1Aug2018 (3).pdf

Hi all, Grateful for any advice on whether to ignore Euro Car Parks or bother appealing. These are the particulars: 1 Date of the infringement 19/7/2018 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] issue date is 25/7/2018 3 Date received 28/7/2018 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Close up pic of car number plate with entry and leaving times 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] no Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up 7 Who is the parking company? Euro Car Parks 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Surbiton Health Centre, KT6 6EZ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA ---- I am the keeper, but wasn't the driver on the day. It's the local GP and you have to go into the GP surgery to register the car on a kiosk to avoid these charge notices coming through. The driver did go in and register the car on the kiosk system, but assume the system messed up. We have proof of the GP appointment on the day - so am wondering if it is worth appealing on these grounds. Grateful for any thoughts.. thanks

Understand the "FINE" point now. thanks! Will open a new thread as suggested. cheers

Hi all, Hoping one of you can clear something up for me on this thread. I didn't want to open a new thread, but am in exactly the same position as the OP here, having received a fine from the same parking company at the same place. @dx100uk - you say to ignore the letter as they can't prove who the driver is - is that correct? But the pop up when I hover over "ignore" says ignoring is not the best response. So little confused as to whether to actually ignore. (hope that makes sense) Or should I reply with the boilerplate: Any advice appreciated. thanks! 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant was driving when parked in [carpark] at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 4. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.