DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31705--------------------------------------------------
Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: July 31, 2024, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a PCN from
parking control management for “parked outside the confines of a
marked bay”. Parking charge to keeper. Received within 14 days
of “offence”
Driver story is as they entered this section of the car park,
where they park 4-5 times a week, they noticed a man on a
bicycle checking car door handles, and picking up old cigarettes
and what not. Fearing for the safety of the vehicle, the driver
observed the person in this section of the parking lot in the
corner of the lot before committing to leave the vehicle there.
Whilst in the vehicle, the driver noticed someone in a car
taking photos of the driver, thinking he was with the dodgy
looking person as it is an odd thing to do. So the driver took
photos of him.
Little did the driver know he was taking evidence for a fine!
Do I have any grounds for appeal given that:
1. Driver was present in the vehicle when photos were taken,
with proof of the pcm worker. In one of their photos on the
online portal, a person can be seen in driver seat.
2. Driver drove off a few minutes after the photos
3. The bay next to the Driver has building works so impossible
to park in and not usable for another customer. Also passenger
cannot exit vehicle.
4. The white lines are not visible beneath the car.
Thanks all.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/RDhMRFL/Get-Image-6.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/z48LqMK
#Post#: 31771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2024, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show us the NtKand any evidential photos they have
provided. Just because the NtK arrived within 14 days of the
event is not proof that they have complied with all the
requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable.
Leave all dates and times showing.
#Post#: 31779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: July 31, 2024, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Please show us the NtKand any evidential photos they have
provided. Just because the NtK arrived within 14 days of the
event is not proof that they have complied with all the
requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable.
>
> Leave all dates and times showing.
>
--- End Quote ---
ok I will send letter and all the photos they uploaded tomorrow.
#Post#: 31819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: August 1, 2024, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If no error in the letter. Do I have a case due to the counter
points mentioned?
-Tyre not wholly over the white line, still partially on white
line. I wasn't parked "outside of the confines if im still
making contact"
-Present in vehicle and that is visible in 3 of the photos
-Cannot park fully to other side as repair works, tyre hit the
metal gate concrete block. Isn't enforcement of the bay subject
to minimum parking bay standards, its too small to park wholly
within...
Letter
HTML https://i.ibb.co/zhVdrsT/IMG-2647.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/vx49H16
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WHJwyns/IMG-2648.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/p1F8z2n
Links to all photos on the portal
HTML https://ibb.co/44RqCS8
HTML https://ibb.co/FxHTKJY
HTML https://ibb.co/wW8gMGz
HTML https://ibb.co/DV3CXC3
HTML https://ibb.co/X5xnwvQ
HTML https://ibb.co/vYZn01j
HTML https://ibb.co/BqWfCzV
#Post#: 31834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: August 1, 2024, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All those photos show is a vehicle in a bay with no ground
markings taken over the span of less than a minute.
The NtK is not PoFA compliant. It fails on 9(2)(e)(i) and (ii)
in that there is no invitation (nor any synonym of the word) for
the keeper to pay the charge and it also fails to tell the
keeper to pass the NtK to the driver.
The NtK also fails PoFA on 9(2)(a) in that it does not specify a
period of parking. It simply specifies a moment in time.
On that basis, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge, only
the driver whose identity is unknown to PCM. Additionally, there
is no evidence of any contravention as the vehicle appears to be
within a bay. There are no markings to indicate that the
location is not a bay or that it is an area that is not
available for parking.
The evidence does not show that the driver did not consider any
signage as it is evident that the driver is still in the vehicle
over the period of less than a minute. So it breaches the new
joint CoP at 2.24, 5.1, 7.3c and Annex B.
Unfortunately, this is an IPC operator so, once the initial
appeal is rejected (it will be) a secondary appeal to the IAS is
an exercise in futility. Others will advise otherwise but
personally, I wouldn't bother.
What you want is to see if they have the bottle to take it all
the way to the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small
claims track in the county court. You would be waiting to see
if/when they decide to issue a claim. If they do, that is good
and is when you will win this. There is no danger of a CCJ.
In the meantime, they will be sending useless debt collector
letters hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible
tree and will capitulate and pay up once they use language that
threatens litigation. You want that, they don’t because
they know that if it ever got that far, they would get a
spanking from a judge.
The choice is yours, appeal as the keeper with the points
highlighted above and see it rejected and then do or don’t
try an IAS appeal which has a les than 5% chance of being
accepted and/or wait for a Letter of Claim (LoC) and an N1SDT
claim form from the CNBC.
Edited to add a health warning: There is a minuscule chance that
if this ever actually got to a hearing and a judge did not
accept your defence, you could be liable for ~£200 in total for
the PCN and fixed costs. However, it is extremely unlikely that
this would ever get to an actual hearing with the highly
likelyhood of the operator having their claim struck out or them
discontinuing once they realise you are not gullible and are
prepared to take this all the way.
Once they have actually pay a hearing fee, they will abandon and
go looking for lower hanging fruit on the gullible tree
#Post#: 31879--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: August 1, 2024, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Wow I can see why the forum tagged you as a hero member. Thank
you so much for taking the time out of your day to give me such
informative, useful information.
Regarding the point that there is no bay markings, could they
counter by taking a photo of the bay white line with my car not
there? Or does only the photos in the proof images count?
To the note that if it goes to the judge and there will be 200
in PCN fees + fixed costs. What are the estimated fixed costs
going to be if you know? Sucks that the appeal is futile and
that there is a body also protecting them when escalating the
appeal.
#Post#: 31889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: August 1, 2024, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They could show a photo of the bay but all they will have is
what is on the file which you have seen only shows the vehicle
for less than a minute is what appears to be a bay with no
bother ground markings to suggest otherwise.
It doesn’t matter anyway because you appeal as the keeper. You
are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking company. They cannot hold the
keeper, you, liable because they have not fully complied with
all the requirements of PoFA. They have nowhere else to go with
this except to try and scare you into paying them.
If it went all the way to court (unlikely but possible) and a
judge did not accept your defence and that you owe the claimant
a debt, it would be the original PCN of £100 plus a £35 claim
fee and fixed legal costs of £50. They would not allow the fake
added “damages” of £70 they add on at DRA stage.
In the remote chance of a loss in court, as long as the CCJ is
paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of anything on
your credit file. It is expunged.
These shysters rely on the gullibility of their victims lack of
knowledge of civil law to either capitulate once the threat of
litigation arises or hope that the victim fails to follow the
correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.
#Post#: 31894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 1, 2024, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures
and they get a CCJ by default.
>
--- End Quote ---
A brief add-on to this - if you move house before the matter is
concluded, be sure to update them with your new address. When we
do see people who have ended up with default judgements against
them, the lion's share are due to changes of address.
#Post#: 33859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: August 19, 2024, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> They could show a photo of the bay but all they will have is
what is on the file which you have seen only shows the vehicle
for less than a minute is what appears to be a bay with no
bother ground markings to suggest otherwise.
>
> It doesn’t matter anyway because you appeal as the keeper. You
are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking company. They cannot hold the
keeper, you, liable because they have not fully complied with
all the requirements of PoFA. They have nowhere else to go with
this except to try and scare you into paying them.
>
> If it went all the way to court (unlikely but possible) and a
judge did not accept your defence and that you owe the claimant
a debt, it would be the original PCN of £100 plus a £35 claim
fee and fixed legal costs of £50. They would not allow the fake
added “damages” of £70 they add on at DRA stage.
>
> In the remote chance of a loss in court, as long as the CCJ is
paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of anything on
your credit file. It is expunged.
>
> These shysters rely on the gullibility of their victims lack
of knowledge of civil law to either capitulate once the threat
of litigation arises or hope that the victim fails to follow the
correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you.
They responded to my appeal and of course rejected. Even in the
appeal they said bay marked by the following things... And there
is none of those in the images they have. Should I bother to
appeal to the IAS or just wait it out from now?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/XFjTsbJ/IMG-2680.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/ssbrw23
HTML https://i.ibb.co/rsxxL4w/IMG-2681.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Ry33MzD
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=2670.msg31889#msg31889
date=1722545086]
> hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures
and they get a CCJ by default.
>
--- End Quote ---
A brief add-on to this - if you move house before the matter is
concluded, be sure to update them with your new address. When we
do see people who have ended up with default judgements against
them, the lion's share are due to changes of address.
[/quote]
Thanks for the heads up.
#Post#: 34718--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: August 27, 2024, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@Vivid23, I see you’ve posted all about this over on MSE today.
Any response to the advice already given here?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page