Jump to content

Murpheus

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Murpheus

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pardon late reply, had a busy last few days. I will make enquiries to the Council or Valuations Agency tomorrow when they are open. I am a little apprehensive about getting the dentist involved although I wasn't warned about the new parking system at the time. I have photos but will need to reduce the mb size of them as 4.5 mb is maximum upload on here. They will also need editing to blot out reg numbers etc. I was given 28 days from CE to cough up after the POPLA decision and that will expire in a few days time. I intend to take this all the way and to save further action [e.g. debt collectors with the £100 rocketing to the thick end of a Grand] write to CE and tell them take me straight to Court as all letters will be ignored.
  2. A combination of blind confidence and not being able to log back on here is the reason for not contacting you earlier. Well observed regarding the REGULAR users. 2 years ago was last time I parked there and that's the only time I go anywhere near the place. I did approach the receptionist and even my Dentist but they couldn't understand how I missed the signs and could offer no other help. Will have to find out who owns the land, there is a sign on the door but this was wedged open for either the hot weather or a delivery. There are screens on the receptionists counter but not being used to the new system thought they were some sort of card payment facility. Would be better if they put notices on the walls where most people stare waiting for treatment ! I do have more photos but need scaling down for the 4.5 mb limit. Cannot edit it now but previous post from "My statement and evidence to POPLA" up to "POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful " is exactly what I sent to POPLA and not something I have just written now.
  3. For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 10/07/2019 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 12/07/19 3 Date received 13/07/19 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? yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] yes Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up yes 7 Who is the parking company? Civil enforcement 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] 10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes ………………….. This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system. The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see. The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me. My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments. Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away. Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless....... Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal. POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful Assessor summary of operator case The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes. Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”. Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.” The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list. The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms. The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019. It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms. The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal. docs1.pdf
  4. Been here before representing my Daughter over a similar parking charge notice that escalated to around £650 and a Court hearing. With your advice and pre typed letters, they backed off and I haven't heard from then since. Now it is me against the ropes and seeking advice from you once more. I did try to update my Daughters case and thank you for all your help but for some reason I could not log into my account. I have had to re-register and this is the problem I have. Briefly Had an appointment with Dentist 10/07/2019 whom I have been using for years and always park in the same bay. Went home then a week later PCN landed. Thinking I was going senile and very angry with myself; I could not understand why I did not see any signs. I went back to the car park and then realized why. The sign at the entrance was obscured by road signs for roadworks, another sign in the car park was hidden by a high-top van and the one directly opposite to where I parked was turned 90 degrees. Other signs were and still are turned 90 with the main sign at the entrance when you leave is blank at the back. Took photos and felt better within myself thinking anyone could have done the same. Appealed to CE then POPLA who dismissed my appeal as unsuccessful. I feel hard done by as the POPLA assessment and decision has misunderstood my evidence and photos. CE are either Numbskulls or have twisted the facts to brainwash POPLA who have agreed to their way of thinking. CE have twisted facts about my photos as if they were taken the day of my dental visit not a week later [see the "Furthermore" CE paragraph below.] Paragraph further below has POPLA insinuating that I disputed the meaning of the signs by stating "signage did not make the terms clear" as if they too think I took the photos on the day. Of course the signs make the terms clear, my argument is I didn't see them that particular day. Below is an extraxt from CE We refer to the Appellant’s submissions that the signage was turned and difficult to see, however, we have attached an image plan dated 27/03/2019 which demonstrates there are many signs on the site which are readable and easy to see. The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured. Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless. Below extract from POPLA decision Assessor summary of your case The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. My summary CE image plan of the car park looks very convincing back in March this year, my photos tell a different story and were ignored by POPLA. I have full documents and photos from this case. Please advise what I can legally upload on here. I am aware not to mention any names, reg numbers, case numbers etc.
×
×
  • Create New...