parking brouhaha
Discussion
Hi, I've received a £25 ticket, rising to £50 if not paid, from a private car park at a local attraction,it was one of those hi tech systems which records the reg and you type it in at the payment terminal. Now my dad paid for me because i rushed off because on of the kids was ill, he says he got the correct reg but you know he could have made an error, he didn't get a receipt but he has sent me a copy of his bank statement which showed the two amounts charged to the local attraction, his and mine. The parking cost was definitely paid this is indisputable.
So does anyone know, with this as evidence, what the chances are that they'll accept this on appeal or are they likely to refuse appeal and say the wrong reg was entered? Obviously I'm inclined to pay the £25 for a quiet life but it does wind me up that the fee was paid and they still think they can demand more.
So does anyone know, with this as evidence, what the chances are that they'll accept this on appeal or are they likely to refuse appeal and say the wrong reg was entered? Obviously I'm inclined to pay the £25 for a quiet life but it does wind me up that the fee was paid and they still think they can demand more.
Breadvan72 said:
Just write in with the details. Be polite, explain what happened. Chances are the charge won't be pursued. Do not listen to anyone who tells you to start invoking Magna Carta and/or various whacky (and mostly plain wrong) legal arguments about a bunch of made up wibble.
Spoilsport. Where's the fun in that?I can see the headlines note. "BV72 caught still talking sense."
Breadvan72 said:
Just write in with the details. Be polite, explain what happened. Chances are the charge won't be pursued. Do not listen to anyone who tells you to start invoking Magna Carta and/or various whacky (and mostly plain wrong) legal arguments about a bunch of made up wibble.
I'll give it a go... They spelt my name wrong on the demand as well, it doesn't give me confidence in the system they're using and how it's administered.FredClogs said:
I'll give it a go... They spelt my name wrong on the demand as well, it doesn't give me confidence in the system they're using and how it's administered.
Were you carrying a straw bale in the boot? If so, you get a free pass in The City of London and can urinate in a coppers helmet. LoonR1 said:
FredClogs said:
I'll give it a go... They spelt my name wrong on the demand as well, it doesn't give me confidence in the system they're using and how it's administered.
Were you carrying a straw bale in the boot? If so, you get a free pass in The City of London and can urinate in a coppers helmet. FredClogs said:
LoonR1 said:
FredClogs said:
I'll give it a go... They spelt my name wrong on the demand as well, it doesn't give me confidence in the system they're using and how it's administered.
Were you carrying a straw bale in the boot? If so, you get a free pass in The City of London and can urinate in a coppers helmet. 
All of it is still bovine excrement though - http://www.insurancerevolution.co.uk/weird-british...
Breadvan72 said:
Just write in with the details. Be polite, explain what happened. Chances are the charge won't be pursued. Do not listen to anyone who tells you to start invoking Magna Carta and/or various whacky (and mostly plain wrong) legal arguments about a bunch of made up wibble.
Unfortunately it most likely will be followed up and any explanation will be ignored with a template letter from the ppc.Your only option will be to try one of the methods on the moneysavingexpert forum or pepipoo at a popla appeal such as not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (depending on the ppc).
I'd like to be proved wrong but this is my guess of what will happen.
Breadvan72 said:
Just write in with the details. Be polite, explain what happened. Chances are the charge won't be pursued. Do not listen to anyone who tells you to start invoking Magna Carta and/or various whacky (and mostly plain wrong) legal arguments about a bunch of made up wibble.
This. Too many people - and I've done it in the past - get into angry complaining mode, when reasonable, "I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here" is so much better for everyone's blood pressure.R32 said:
...
Your only option will be to try one of the methods on the moneysavingexpert forum or pepipoo at a popla appeal such as not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (depending on the ppc).
...
Rubbish on stilts! OP, ignore this nonsense. Do not go to those loony websites, unless for comedy value. Note also that the Supreme Court will be opining on the penalty argument some time in the coming autumn. Your only option will be to try one of the methods on the moneysavingexpert forum or pepipoo at a popla appeal such as not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (depending on the ppc).
...
Breadvan72 said:
R32 said:
...
Your only option will be to try one of the methods on the moneysavingexpert forum or pepipoo at a popla appeal such as not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (depending on the ppc).
...
Rubbish on stilts! OP, ignore this nonsense. Do not go to those loony websites, unless for comedy value. Note also that the Supreme Court will be opining on the penalty argument some time in the coming autumn. Your only option will be to try one of the methods on the moneysavingexpert forum or pepipoo at a popla appeal such as not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (depending on the ppc).
...
I heard on the news that a guy was challenging the idea that a fine is not compensation etc... But that's far to legaleese for me, I'm a very simple minded engineer.
Breadvan72 said:
Rubbish on stilts! OP, ignore this nonsense. Do not go to those loony websites, unless for comedy value. Note also that the Supreme Court will be opining on the penalty argument some time in the coming autumn.
But they work!? I'm no legal eagle, but 1000's of tickets have been cancelled due to the not a pre estimate of loss argument.NOTE the supreme court case is different to most situations due to PE paying the landowner to issue tickets (I'm sure you know this BV).
Anyway, lets see how the OP gets on with his "sensible" letter
Well... Part of me is rather disappointed to report after my polite but firy worded email and a nailbiting 8 hour wait in the appeals process they have agreed to drop the demand and apologised (of sorts). The bank statement showing the payment being taken was enough to persuade them. It irks me somewhat, I'd love to know if there is a bug in their system or they just randomly demand money from a percentage of customers on the off chance people won't dispute it. A quick Google on the company and local attraction does throw up a lot of complaints of people "suffering" similarly to me, if we'd have paid cash we'd be in a very tricky spot without a receipt.
As you were...
As you were...
FredClogs said:
Well... Part of me is rather disappointed to report after my polite but firy worded email and a nailbiting 8 hour wait in the appeals process they have agreed to drop the demand and apologised (of sorts). The bank statement showing the payment being taken was enough to persuade them. It irks me somewhat, I'd love to know if there is a bug in their system or they just randomly demand money from a percentage of customers on the off chance people won't dispute it. A quick Google on the company and local attraction does throw up a lot of complaints of people "suffering" similarly to me, if we'd have paid cash we'd be in a very tricky spot without a receipt.
As you were...
Disappointed? Yes, there's nothing worse than getting the right result As you were...
R32 said:
But they work!? I'm no legal eagle, but 1000's of tickets have been cancelled due to the not a pre estimate of loss argument.
NOTE the supreme court case is different to most situations due to PE paying the landowner to issue tickets (I'm sure you know this BV).
Anyway, lets see how the OP gets on with his "sensible" letter
1. The sensible letter worked. No loony tune stuff required. Common sense approach as advocated by actual lawyer one, barrack room lawyer wibble nil.NOTE the supreme court case is different to most situations due to PE paying the landowner to issue tickets (I'm sure you know this BV).
Anyway, lets see how the OP gets on with his "sensible" letter
2. The penalty argument is not loony tune, but the loony websites bury that formerly sound point in assorted woo arguments. In any event, all may change if the Supreme Court upholds the CA decision.
3. The paying PE point is not a key distinction. If you and/or the loony website loonies fondly imagine that the Supreme Court decision, if adverse to the motorists, will not have wide application, then you imagine fondly indeed!
Your implied suggestion that I was seeking to mislead by omission is rejected. Do you really think I come here to obfuscate or spread confusion? I am actually trying to spread a little legal education, although I am ever mindful of what Pope says about a little learning.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 4th August 19:28
Breadvan72 said:
R32 said:
But they work!? I'm no legal eagle, but 1000's of tickets have been cancelled due to the not a pre estimate of loss argument.
NOTE the supreme court case is different to most situations due to PE paying the landowner to issue tickets (I'm sure you know this BV).
Anyway, lets see how the OP gets on with his "sensible" letter
1. The sensible letter worked. No loony tune stuff required. Common sense approach as advocated by actual lawyer one, barrack room lawyer wibble nil.NOTE the supreme court case is different to most situations due to PE paying the landowner to issue tickets (I'm sure you know this BV).
Anyway, lets see how the OP gets on with his "sensible" letter
2. The penalty argument is not loony tune, but the loony websites bury that formerly sound point in assorted woo arguments. In any event, all may change if the Supreme Court upholds the CA decision.
3. The paying PE point is not a key distinction. If you and/or the loony website loonies fondly imagine that the Supreme Court decision, if adverse to the motorists, will not have wide application, then you imagine fondly indeed!
Your implied suggestion that I was seeking to mislead by omission is rejected. Do you really think I come here to obfuscate or spread confusion? I am actually trying to spread a liitle legal education, although I am ever mindful of what Pope says about a little learning.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 4th August 08:44
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff