Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

PPS ANPR PCN - Paid but ANPR says no! - Crossway Centre Paignton


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1794 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Someone who isn't me (SWIM) bought a parking ticket for a car park whilst on holiday

paid the correct fee

input their car reg

went to the shops and

then left in their vehicle within the required timeframe.

The car park operates ANPR 

 

a few weeks later SWIM received a PCN despite having followed all the rules of the car park.

The parking company is saying that they have no record of a payment for SWIMs car.

 

SWIM wrote to the parking company explaining that they paid and followed all the rules of the car park

however the parking company replied with a standard template letter and are now adding more to their PCN and threatening court action.

Unfortunately before receiving the PCN SWIMs partner threw the parking ticket away as part of cleaning out the car after the holiday.  

 

The parking company has pictures of SWIMs car entering and leaving the car park but is saying that no number plate was entered into their machine.

This is not correct

the number plate was definitely inputted and the fee paid in cash.

 

The car park is in a shocking state of disrepair and there have been several cases of the company issuing PCNs due to their own faulty equipment.  

 

The parking company have taken people to court before and lost.

However, the defendants in those cases had their tickets as proof of payment.

 

If SWIM is taken to court their argument would be that the private parking company's (PPC) equipment must have been faulty and that the only evidence the PPC has is the car driving into and out of the carpark.  

 

They have no real evidence of no payment.

In fact CCTV footage would show a payment has been made, furthermore there were no other cars in the nearly derelict car park so if a payment was registered on the machine but not a number plate that would have to be SWIMs. 

 

Dose SWIM no longer having a ticket ruin their chance of winning if this ends up in court?

SWIM is prepared to take it to court if needed.

 

Are there any similar cases of people winning in court despite no longer having their parking ticket?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

and post up the appeal sent.

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement

 

09/02/19

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

 

15/02/19

 

3 Date received

 

17/02/19

 

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?

 

There are photos of the car entering and leaving the carpark 

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

SWIM wrote a letter to the PPC explaining the situation and stated that SWIM would not enter into any further correspondence with the company. The PPC replied with a picture of their signage all of which SWIM followed. It is clear from the parking companies response that they did not properly read SWIMs letter and simply replied with a template.

 

7 Who is the parking company?

 

SWIM dosen't want to say at this stage incase they are reading the forums as currently the PPC are unaware that SWIM has lost their ticket. 

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

 

Same as above. But the car park is all but derelict. SWIM and their passengers were the only people to be in the car park at the time. It is filthy filled with needles and other unsavory litter. 

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

theIAS 

 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 

A letter replying to SWIMs letter.

 

A letter dated 11/05/19 from a debt collection agency asking for payment and stating that if it is not received by 25/05/19 they will advise their client take court action.

 

SWIM has not replied to either as SWIM said in their initial letter that SWIM would not enter into any further correspondence with the PPC

 

Edited by Darts123
Link to post
Share on other sites

no need for secret squirrel ... name them and the parks location from the letters please.

the fact he has no proof of parking or paying now is immaterial

this will be a case of wrongly entered reg no.

not his problem if their ANPR system is not upto scratch and cant work things out.

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Company is Premier Parking Solutions 

 

Crossway Centre Paignton

 

SWIM deff entered reg correctly but the machines and car park as a whole are in a seriously bad state.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PPS ANPR PCN - Paid but ANPR says no! - Crossway Centre Paignton

Yes I have seen other posts on here relating to them. I know that they do take people to court even when it seems they know they will lose. My question would be without a ticket what proof dose SWIM have and what case can SWIM make to defend themselves. 

 

Presumably the Courts in Devon must be tired of having to deal with PPS cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, i contacted the Torbay Planning Department by telephone and email and they did an investigation for me going back to 1991 and they emailed me back staying there is NO APPLICATION OR GRANTED PERMISSION FOR ANYONE (Land owner or Leese) TO ERECT ANPR OR SIGNAGE FOR ENFORCEMENT OR FOR ANY REASON IN THE CROSSWAYS CAR PARK.

So i really hope that helps someone else. 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through that today. It’s interesting, but can SWIM use the planning permission as a defence?

 

Also florence’s case is quite different. They have since put signage up relating to number plates as far as I am aware. Also she had her ticket as proof of payment. As I said before SWIM dose not as it was thrown away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

but have they got PP for their signs and ANPR poles now?

worthy of a new check.

 

the fact that she has no proof of purchase is immaterial

if it ever went to court they would have as you will demand.and they must..supply data/.a list of all car regs from anpr and all the data from the payment machine

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they have to supply the data from their payment machines to the court? If so they would be stuffed as SWIM and co were the only people in the car park at that time and would of been the only person to use the machine. Therefore any payments in that machine would relate to SWIMs car.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

ofcourse they would.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That disclosure and the fact that a wrong entry of Reg No is de-minimis, so a trifle might be enough to discourage them from trying ourt, but blinded by greed they might be silly.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

what tends to happen is they start proceedings and hope you wee yourself and pay up as they know that they are likely to lose the claim at an actual hearing. They do this for 2 reasons, firstly they are greedy and dont want to give up on a payday, regardless of how undeserving it is and secondly, if they just admit they are wrong them people will start abusing them by obeying the law but not their silly games and they will lose all potential income once word gets out so they try and use the courts to limit their exposure to reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. Time will tell what course of action they decide to take. 

 

They have CCTV pointing at the machines so footage from the day would show SWIM paying for their parking. Also as you say their records would show parking was paid for. 

 

What is to stop them telling the court they don't have those records? Presumably if they did that then it would discredit their whole case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

without them they cant prove anything.

think about it??

it for them to prove you didn't pay

not for you to prove you did

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they start telling lies about what they do and dont have as far as CCTV goes then they couild end up being fined £6.5 million by the ICO.

The data will be requested in the fullness of timea nd then see whatn they say. basically they are damned either way, if they have destroyed it then they cnat prove their claim and if they produce it they will show their claim is just vex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

SWIM has received two letters from debt recovery plus. One asking for £160 by a certain date. When this wasn’t paid they sent a second stating that they had advised PPS to take them to court but PPS have decided to extend the deadline to pay by 14 days. DRP are saying if it isn’t paid by then they will advise court action. 

 

I assume this is all standard practice for them. 

 

Do you think SWIM should write to them stating they are more than happy to fight this in court or continue to ignore? SWIM has only corresponded with them once. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

until/unless you get a letter of claim under PAP rules from one of their fake/tame paper only solicitors you ignore everyone

 

any DCA on ANY debt have zero legal powers

and are

NOT BAILLIFFS 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will probably employ a solicitor to send out another threatogram before sending a PAP letter. When you get that letter before action THEN you respond but until them you ignore.

Let them spend their money on rubbish, it wont change the outcome and responding to an uninterested third party wont make any difference either. they are hoping that you fold and pay up now as they know that they stand a poor chance of actually winning a court claim as the onus is on them to prove they are right and you are wrong and as said destroying the evidence that helps you will also kill ther claim and get them into trouble so they will try ignorance first and them probably just fail to proceed when they realise that you arent going to play along with their deception

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...