I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.
I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA. Is that in my favour?
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...…..
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.......
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....
How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived.
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.
Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!