Parking fine assistance (yay!)
Discussion
Stay in Bed Instead said:
It's debatable. 'should' would normally be considered an obligation not an invitation, but also is not 'must' so arguably creates the opportunity not to.
You?
The legislation is very simple and easy and not debatable at all. Its very black and white. You?
At the very start of s9 (2) it states the notice (NTK) must contain certain information.
The PCN
does reference and contain (2) (b) the keeper being informed the driver is liable for the charge
but
does reference or contain anything (2) (e) about inviting the keeper to name the driver
So therefore it fails to comply
pavarotti1980 said:
The legislation is very simple and easy and not debatable at all. Its very black and white.
At the very start of s9 (2) it states the notice (NTK) must contain certain information.
The PCN
does reference and contain (2) (b) the keeper being informed the driver is liable for the charge
but
does reference or contain anything (2) (e) about inviting the keeper to name the driver
So therefore it fails to comply
You consider 'should' is not an invitation. You could have just stated that ages ago and save all this faffing about.At the very start of s9 (2) it states the notice (NTK) must contain certain information.
The PCN
does reference and contain (2) (b) the keeper being informed the driver is liable for the charge
but
does reference or contain anything (2) (e) about inviting the keeper to name the driver
So therefore it fails to comply
Stay in Bed Instead said:
You consider 'should' is not an invitation. You could have just stated that ages ago and save all this faffing about.
You could have not bothered typing which would have saved faffing around.Should have typed in crayon to help you because it is apparent that as well as very simple legislation you dont appear to understand the meaning of words in the English language either
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Obviously the same would apply so watch you dont wear a green jumper on a Tuesday in a car park near you otherwise thats it. £250 to have your vehicle unclamped 
He paid for parking and overstayed. Not really that much of an issue. The obvious resolution would be they request the additional parking time and a small admin fee
Stay in Bed Instead said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Sorry (e) not (b)
The NTK should invite the keeper to name the driver. Does that mean they are mandated by legislation to do so?
I invite you to a party. You can decline that invitation. It doesnt mean you have to attend.
That's not really addressing the issue at hand.The NTK should invite the keeper to name the driver. Does that mean they are mandated by legislation to do so?
I invite you to a party. You can decline that invitation. It doesnt mean you have to attend.
"I am having a party You should come"
Stay in Bed Instead said:
But not the consequences.
The consequences could be £0 cost to the OP is he is able to successfully have the PCN overturned due to the fact ECP are unable to follow POFA 2012If POPLA agree with the OP and cancel PCN does that mean he is still at fault or would the fault lie with the PPC?
pavarotti1980 said:
The consequences could be £0 cost to the OP is he is able to successfully have the PCN overturned due to the fact ECP are unable to follow POFA 2012
If POPLA agree with the OP and cancel PCN does that mean he is still at fault or would the fault lie with the PPC?
They would both be at fault, but the OP would not be out of pocket.If POPLA agree with the OP and cancel PCN does that mean he is still at fault or would the fault lie with the PPC?
Stay in Bed Instead said:
They would both be at fault, but the OP would not be out of pocket.
Maybe he could donate the 50p or whatever to charity then.However if the PPC is actually out of pocket then they should learn to read and write
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 14th June 14:56
silverfoxcc said:
xjay
Just double check on pepipoo that it is all ok as written, poster called ostell is quite good on this.
We don't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Thanks dude.Just double check on pepipoo that it is all ok as written, poster called ostell is quite good on this.
We don't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Ostell was commenting on my post - indeed very helpful, he said the modified template should be OK - I sent off the appeal this afternoon
Thank you for your help, I will keep updated!
super7 said:
3) Thirdly, what pub charges customers to park their cars in a car park so that they can spend more money inside. Any pub that charges for parking deserves to fail.
4) Finally, a couple of things is not 4 things...
OP... you come across as a privileged knob who seems to think they can pick and choose when to follow the rules?
I used to live near there and boldmere is a very busy high street with limited parking.4) Finally, a couple of things is not 4 things...
OP... you come across as a privileged knob who seems to think they can pick and choose when to follow the rules?
I'm pretty sure if you eat in the harvester you get the money refunded off your meal.
There is also a travelodge to the rear of this harvester so the parking charges are very much set up to deter people like the OP.
In future there is plenty of on road parking if you park on the roads off boldmere road. You'll just need to walk for a min or two.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff