DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31959--------------------------------------------------
Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Q
uarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: August 2, 2024, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver attended a property at Orbit Homes' St Anne's Quarter
development in Norwich, in order to provide professional
services to its owner. The driver noted the extremely large
'Visitors Parking' sign to the car park, and left the vehicle
there at approximately 0945hrs whilst visiting the subject
property. Upon their return approximately 5-10 minutes after
parking, they noted that the following PCN had been affixed to
their windscreen:
[img width=1077
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/azymMa1.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1077
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/51xvuwr.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1077
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/oVesI6n.jpeg[/img]
The first image is a bit poor - the PCN states no 'first seen
at' time, and the time of issue is 0946hrs.
The below image shows the car park, with broader context
available here (
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/weY24BGRmdk92bbV7)
[img width=1077
height=607]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/v2eDp1E.jpeg[/img]
This is the large 'visitor parking' sign, in front of which the
driver parked:
[img width=1077 height=825]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/02HRUeZ.jpg[/img]
The driver did not obtain photographs of the signage in the car
park, but typical NTC yellow signs are visible in the image
above, and contained text stating that vehicles had to be
registered with the NTC database.
Any and all advice greatly appreciated!
#Post#: 32277--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: August 5, 2024, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a further update, the driver has spoken with Orbit who have
said that they are unable to cancel the charge.
Is there anything the driver should be doing as a matter of
urgency or, with windscreen tickets, is it a case of waiting
until the NTK is received in the post?
#Post#: 33364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: August 14, 2024, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bump - anyone able to offer any input, please?
#Post#: 33366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: August 14, 2024, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As it is an IPC operator, just wait for the NtK to be issued.
#Post#: 33367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: August 14, 2024, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg33366#msg33366
date=1723654713]
As it is an IPC operator, just wait for the NtK to be issued.
[/quote]
Cheers, b789.
I'll wait for the NTK and then come back once it arrives.
#Post#: 33373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: The Rookie Date: August 14, 2024, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did the contractual signs (not shared) give any restrictions on
visitors parking such as needing a visitors permit or logging in
to a terminal?
#Post#: 36446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: September 11, 2024, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NTK now received (received today, despite the date of sending
stating 3rd September 2024). Details below:
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/RPaPH5i.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/0y35ue5.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/2MyzMLW.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7Sjujwq.jpeg[/img]
Is the notice POFA compliant? Otherwise, does anyone have any
experience of Norwich Traffic Control? Are they the kind to
avoid taking matters to court if there is any hint that the
keeper is up for a fight, or are they best not to be messed
with?
#Post#: 36456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: September 11, 2024, 10:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may want to redact your personal data from those photos,
such as your name, address, VRM and PCN number. I just tried to
log into the appeals website with your details and it say the
following:
[img width=500 height=146]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FzhvMYz.png[/img]
The NtK is mostly PoFA compliant as far as I can see except for
the "period of parking" being only specified as "the period
immediately preceding...".
The NtD and the NtK both fail to comply with PoFA paragraphs
7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) respectively, which require the notice to
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked,
and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The NtD and NtK provided by NTC do not specify a period of
parking, but instead only give a single timestamp of 0948. A
single point in time does not constitute a "period" of parking
as required by law. The notices should indicate the duration
during which the vehicle was allegedly parked.
If the alleged contravention states "Unauthorised parking" and
the NtD or NtK only provide a single point in time without
specifying the period of parking, it does not comply with the
requirements of PoFA, even with the "unauthorised parking"
allegation.
PoFA still mandates that the notice must "specify the period of
parking" regardless of the nature of the contravention, whether
it's for overstaying, failing to pay, or "unauthorised parking."
The reason is that the term "parking" inherently refers to a
period during which the vehicle is stationary. Therefore, to
prove "unauthorised parking", NTC must establish that the
vehicle was parked for a specific period without authorisation,
not just at a single moment.
A single timestamp, such as 0948, does not show the vehicle was
"parked" or unauthorised for a period of time, making it
difficult to substantiate the contravention. The failure to
specify a period of parking is non-compliant with the statutory
requirements of PoFA.
However, you are dealing with an IPC member and no appeal (not
that, apparently, they are giving you any chance to appeal
anyway) is going to succeed with them or the IAS. You are going
to have to sit this out, ignoring all reminders and debt
collector letters and wait and see if/when they decide to issue
a claim for the alleged debt. If/when they do, then come back
and we can advise on how to defend any claim.
TO assist you in future, if/when they decide to try and make a
claim, you are advised to get your own evidential photos of the
entrance to the location and an overview of the actual car park
area and a close up of the terms signs so that we can scrutinise
them for breaches of contract law and the IPC Code of Practice
(CoP).
#Post#: 36469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: September 11, 2024, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg36456#msg36456
date=1726068088]
You may want to redact your personal data from those photos,
such as your name, address, VRM and PCN number. I just tried to
log into the appeals website with your details and it say the
following:
[img width=500 height=146]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FzhvMYz.png[/img]
The NtK is mostly PoFA compliant as far as I can see except for
the "period of parking" being only specified as "the period
immediately preceding...".
The NtD and the NtK both fail to comply with PoFA paragraphs
7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) respectively, which require the notice to
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked,
and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The NtD and NtK provided by NTC do not specify a period of
parking, but instead only give a single timestamp of 0948. A
single point in time does not constitute a "period" of parking
as required by law. The notices should indicate the duration
during which the vehicle was allegedly parked.
If the alleged contravention states "Unauthorised parking" and
the NtD or NtK only provide a single point in time without
specifying the period of parking, it does not comply with the
requirements of PoFA, even with the "unauthorised parking"
allegation.
PoFA still mandates that the notice must "specify the period of
parking" regardless of the nature of the contravention, whether
it's for overstaying, failing to pay, or "unauthorised parking."
The reason is that the term "parking" inherently refers to a
period during which the vehicle is stationary. Therefore, to
prove "unauthorised parking", NTC must establish that the
vehicle was parked for a specific period without authorisation,
not just at a single moment.
A single timestamp, such as 0948, does not show the vehicle was
"parked" or unauthorised for a period of time, making it
difficult to substantiate the contravention. The failure to
specify a period of parking is non-compliant with the statutory
requirements of PoFA.
However, you are dealing with an IPC member and no appeal (not
that, apparently, they are giving you any chance to appeal
anyway) is going to succeed with them or the IAS. You are going
to have to sit this out, ignoring all reminders and debt
collector letters and wait and see if/when they decide to issue
a claim for the alleged debt. If/when they do, then come back
and we can advise on how to defend any claim.
TO assist you in future, if/when they decide to try and make a
claim, you are advised to get your own evidential photos of the
entrance to the location and an overview of the actual car park
area and a close up of the terms signs so that we can scrutinise
them for breaches of contract law and the IPC Code of Practice
(CoP).
[/quote]
Thanks b789, much appreciated. I've uploaded new images - I
hadn't realised that my personal details are emblazoned all over
the fourth page as well!
Is it worth pre-emptively contacting them to state that their
NTK and NTD are not POFA compliant (and that I shall be using
this defence should they choose to take further action) in an
attempt to nip any further action in the bud? Or is it better
to sit tight and wait and see what they do next?
#Post#: 36478--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: September 11, 2024, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, as they are IPC members, there is little point in
challenging them to anything. You are dealing with greedy
ex-clampers who are only interested in getting as much money out
of you as possible.
Maybe the others on here will suggest otherwise, however, if I
were in your position, I would sit tight and wait and see if
they decide to take it court. They may never do so. They may
threaten to do so and still not do so. They may even start a
claim but not bother to see it all the way through in the hope
that the threat of litigation is enough to scare you into
paying.
You will receive a load of reminders and subsequently, loads of
debt collector letters, which can all be ignored as they have no
power to do anything and are sent with the same purpose of
trying to scare you into capitulating and paying up. The only
thing you would need to look out for is a Letter of Claim (LoC)
which will look similar to a debt collection letter but will
give you 30 days to pay as opposed to all the debt collector
letters which only give you 14 or less days to pay.
If you get an LoC, then come back. Whilst it is advisable to
respond to an LoC, it is not essential. However, as an LoC is a
precursor to an actual county court claim, (if) when an actual
N1SDT claim form arrives, it must be responded to and you should
let us know so that we can provide the correct guidance and
advice.
As the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service,
it is in any defence that you can plead the breaches of PoFA
etc.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page