DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22224--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Payment Permit not enough Cover – Treaty
Centre, Hounslow
DIR By: b789
Date: May 12, 2024, 6:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst not applicable in this case, it is interesting that under
their Parking Charge Notice Information, they correctly inform a
hire company should transfer liability: “If you are a vehicle
hire firm and the vehicle was hired out at the time the parking
took place, please let us know and provide us with a copy of the
hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by
the hirer under that hire agreement.”
However, under their Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph,
they state: “Should you identify someone who denies they were
the driver, we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount
that remains outstanding.”. They are absolutely not allowed to
do this as the only person who knows who was driving is the
driver themselves. A hire company cannot know who was driving
and once liability is transferred to the hirer, the only
recourse open to the operator is to pursue the keeper if all the
requirements of PoFA have been met or pursue the driver if they
know who that is.
So, a hire company that transfers liability to a hirer is unable
to comply with that wording as they can only identify a hirer.
Bastardising the wording in the NtK whilst purporting to be
relying on it as an NtK that complies with the strict
requirements of PoFA is a PoFA fail in and of itself.
#Post#: 22235--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Payment Permit not enough Cover – Treaty
Centre, Hounslow
DIR By: sparx
Date: May 12, 2024, 7:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The parking notice relates to an event 2 weeks after the clocks
went forward, it's possible that the machine was not working on
the same timezone as the backend system, hence the "1 hour
forward" parking period, its cocked up the calculation, or even
that the time issue is linking someone elses parking event to
OP.
#Post#: 22255--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Payment Permit not enough Cover – Treaty
Centre, Hounslow
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 13, 2024, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So you now have the full suite of evidence and it's all theirs
and proves your case.
From their evidence:
A photo of your car entering at 11.13;
A photo of your car leaving at 12.33;
Their response to your appeal which states:
A ticket matching your registration was purchased for £2.00 this
would have entitled your vehicle to park for up to 1 Hour
according to the clearly displayed tariff.
supplemented by an extract from the creditor's records stating:
Transaction ..... amount paid £2.00 period start 12.33
period end 13.33
The Notice to Keeper alleges the following breach:
'the payment did not cover the period of parking'
Sir,
I would refer the assessor to the creditor's letter dated ***
which states that at 12.33 the following payment was made in
respect of VRM ***:
Transaction ..... amount paid £2.00 period start 12.33
period end 13.33
I also refer to the PCN which shows a time of exit of 12.36.
It is impossible to reconcile this evidence which implies that
the driver paid for an hour but left 3 minutes later. In any
event this evidence does not support a claim for a breach which
alleges that payment was not made for the period of parking.
Instead it shows that the driver grossly overpaid.
However, the assessor will also notice that the PCN gives a time
of entry of 11.16 and again it is impossible to reconcile this
with the creditor's written evidence that the period of parking
started at 12.33.
The creditor's evidence does not support a claim for a breach
but instead shows that their records are contradictory and
therefore unreliable as evidence. One would have thought that on
receipt of my representations the creditor would have seen that
their systems were awry and, instead of rejecting these,
examined their own shortcomings. But they did not.
As the assessor will know, British Summer Time began on *** and
whether this had any bearing on their ANPR and other records, I
do not know. However, if their baseless claim against me is
merely representative of perhaps a wider problem where
potentially hundreds of other false demands for payment of
parking charges might have been made, then I would welcome a
comment from the assessor in the strongest possible terms which
I could then use as the basis for a referral to the BPA for them
to take further action.
#Post#: 22256--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Payment Permit not enough Cover – Treaty
Centre, Hounslow
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 13, 2024, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The above is a good start, but I think specific reference does
need to be made to the fact that the calculation of the amount
owed when paying at the machine, is done by ECP's machine and
not by the motorist.
ECP will make a big show of the facts that:
- The driver paid for 1 hour of parking
- The car was in the car park for 1 hour 23 minutes
What needs to be made clear, in my view, is that the reason 1
hour was paid for is because that is all that ECP's faulty
machine claimed was due, without an opportunity for the driver
to amend this.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page