Tweet
Hello, just wondering if I can get a hand here please, I received a pcn from a private company and the date of the incident was 01/07/2021 and the date issued was the 05/08/2021.
They got a photo of my car entering the parking
Dear sir,
I, as registered keeper wish to invoke you appeals procedure. I note the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 section 9, states that for keeper liability to apply the keeper must receive a notice to keeper within 14 days. the date of the incident was 01/07/2021 and your notice to keeper dated 05/08/2021 and delivered sometime thereafter. according to my abacus the notice to keeper should have arrived no later than 15/07/2021.
In any event your charges are penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code and be warned that I will constitute any further unwanted contact as harassment and will sue as per Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] civ 46 (10 February 2009), Roberts v Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA civ 882 (11 June 2013) and Bank of Scotland v Johnson (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA civ 982 (19 June 2013).
Yours,
And there reply was,
The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 05/08/2021.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 05/08/2021.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
As detailed on the clear, prominent and unambiguous signage (the contract), drivers agree to pay the sum of £100 if 'payment for the duration of your vehicles stay has not been made in full'.
The contract also details that payment is required immediately on arrival, and that the tariff applies from the time of entry until the time of exit.
If any term of the contract is disagreeable, the driver should seek alternative parking without delay. By remaining for a period in excess of that required to determine if the car park suits their needs, the driver is deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract in their entirety.
The appellants' vehicle occupied the car park for 11 minutes and 23 second on 01/07/2021 and no payment was made for said occupancy; a fact that the appellant does not dispute.
In response to the appellants' comments:
* The Protection of Freedoms Act has no bearing on this matter, as the identity of the driver is known.
* The sum of the charge is not intended nor required to reflect any loss.
* POPLA have zero juristiction in this matter.
In light of the above and attached, we trust that this appeal will be dismissed as it has no merit.
Thank you.
If someone could shed some light on this would be great.
They got a photo of my car entering the parking
Dear sir,
I, as registered keeper wish to invoke you appeals procedure. I note the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 section 9, states that for keeper liability to apply the keeper must receive a notice to keeper within 14 days. the date of the incident was 01/07/2021 and your notice to keeper dated 05/08/2021 and delivered sometime thereafter. according to my abacus the notice to keeper should have arrived no later than 15/07/2021.
In any event your charges are penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code and be warned that I will constitute any further unwanted contact as harassment and will sue as per Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] civ 46 (10 February 2009), Roberts v Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA civ 882 (11 June 2013) and Bank of Scotland v Johnson (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA civ 982 (19 June 2013).
Yours,
And there reply was,
The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 05/08/2021.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 05/08/2021.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
As detailed on the clear, prominent and unambiguous signage (the contract), drivers agree to pay the sum of £100 if 'payment for the duration of your vehicles stay has not been made in full'.
The contract also details that payment is required immediately on arrival, and that the tariff applies from the time of entry until the time of exit.
If any term of the contract is disagreeable, the driver should seek alternative parking without delay. By remaining for a period in excess of that required to determine if the car park suits their needs, the driver is deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract in their entirety.
The appellants' vehicle occupied the car park for 11 minutes and 23 second on 01/07/2021 and no payment was made for said occupancy; a fact that the appellant does not dispute.
In response to the appellants' comments:
* The Protection of Freedoms Act has no bearing on this matter, as the identity of the driver is known.
* The sum of the charge is not intended nor required to reflect any loss.
* POPLA have zero juristiction in this matter.
In light of the above and attached, we trust that this appeal will be dismissed as it has no merit.
Thank you.
If someone could shed some light on this would be great.
Comment