DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 1, 2023, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now submitted the appeal on-line along the lines of the
draft above. The interesting thing is that when I get into the
appeal pages the full address where the offence is alleged to
have occurred is shown. However, this just is not on the face of
the PCN and hence I am arguing (or will argue if necessary) that
this is inadmissible.
It's not inadmissible, it's evidence..and in your favour.
The PCN itself must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
From what you are saying, the creditor knew full well the exact
location and you have now been able to determine where this
occured.
Great...because it means that you can now look at the site on
GSV or in person to check on the signs without undermining a key
element of your appeal which was that you were unaware where it
occured.
#Post#: 4333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: September 4, 2023, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now had a sort of reminder PCN from Parking Eye but it is
not headed Reminder, it is almost as though it were a new PCN
but relating to the original "offence" i.e. the date of the
offence is as before but the PCN bears a new date with a warning
that it should be paid within 28 days of "the date of issue"
which is now set out as 30 August. Similarly with the period for
payment at a discount. The effect seems to be to just extend the
periods - although I am not minded to pay anyway - but is this
usual/legal?
Certainly you wouldn't find a LA issuing a second PCN for the
same offence but with a new date of issue. I don't suppose it
invalidates the original PCN does it? It is certainly muddying
the waters though!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 4334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 4, 2023, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can we see the back of this new notice?
It's certainly unusual from ParkingEye, their reminder notices
are usually clearly identified as such. Perhaps they used the
wrong template.
#Post#: 4337--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 4, 2023, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO I would reply, with a straight bat of course.
PCNs **********/*********
Dear Sir,
On *** I appealed PCN ******** which you issued on *****.
On **** I received a response which neither accepted nor
rejected my appeal.
On *** I wrote to you bringing this extra-procedural response to
your attention.
You responded on **** by issuing a second PCN, no.********, in
respect of the same alleged penalty charge. As the circumstances
of these PCNs are identical and the addressee the same in each
case, I trust you will now cancel both, in as much as the second
has any validity, and draw a line under this episode.
#Post#: 4352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: September 4, 2023, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's the back of the new notice. I had looked at it quickly
and assumed it was the same rubric as in the first but on
looking more carefully there is an additional para which I have
marked with asterisks. This is rather a strange para as (to
paraphrase) it says they (PE) have written to the RK (i.e. me)
and he (me) has informed them that you (again me, as the
addressee of the letter) was responsible for the "parking
event". But they then go on to say that they don't know the
contact details for the driver and could I please inform them
who it was if it wasn't me. They then omit the para headed
Protection of Freedoms Act that appeared in the original PCN.
So thoroughly convoluted and confusing :-\
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 4519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: September 6, 2023, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Should I write to Parking Eye again to point out the incoherence
of this along the lines of HCA's draft?
#Post#: 4521--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 6, 2023, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I'd me minded to, yes. Although if you're making use of
HCAndersen's wording, change 'penalty charge' to 'parking
charge'.
To hopefully avoid any further confusion, you may wish to attach
a copy of your initial appeal alongside this, and make clear in
the response that you are doing so.
#Post#: 4677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: September 9, 2023, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my suggested letter to PE drawing on HCA's draft but
expanding it a bit:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir,
>
> On 14 August I appealed PCN 226902/075498 which you issued on
1 August.
>
> On 30 August I received a response which neither accepted nor
rejected my appeal.
>
> On 1 September I wrote to you bringing this extra-procedural
response to your attention.
>
> You responded by post in a letter received by me on 4
September by issuing a second PCN, bearing the same number as
the original but dated 30 August in respect of the same alleged
penalty charge, asking for a penalty to be paid within 28 days
of the [new] issue date.
>
> On the back of the “new” PCN is a paragraph that says as
follows:
>
> “We originally wrote to the registered keeper [that is me] of
the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of
the parking event and they [me again] have informed us that you
[me again] were responsible for this vehicle at the time of the
parking event [no I have not]…..if you were not the driver at
the time [I have already told you I was not] you should tell us
the name and current postal address of the driver [I am under no
legal obligation to do this].
>
> You have now sent me two separate PCNs on different dates of
issue for the same “offence” and a letter which is misinformed
and thoroughly confusing.
> As the circumstances of these PCNs are identical and the
addressee the same in each case, I trust you will now cancel
both, given that the second has no validity, and that you have
failed to supply a comprehensive answer to the appeal against
the first.
--- End Quote ---
Given that PE had 35 days to respond to my appeal of 14 August -
which I contend they have not done in a substantive form - this
takes us to 18 September by my reckoning. Should I send the
above letter now to "mark their card" and then assuming nothing
has arrived by 18 September another to say "you are out of
time"? I am mindful that my assertion above "you have failed to
supply a comprehensive answer" begs the question "by when"?
#Post#: 4680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 9, 2023, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I think I'd me minded to, yes. Although if you're making use
of HCAndersen's wording, change 'penalty charge' to 'parking
charge'.
>
--- End Quote ---
Note the above. A minor difference, but important when you're
trying to sound like you know your stuff.
I wouldn't say 'you're out of time'. But by all means remind
them of the deadlines in the Code of Practice (noting that them
failing to comply by it is poor practice, but doesn't
necessarily prevent them trying to take things further).
#Post#: 4683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: September 9, 2023, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair point about parking charge v parking penalty, you did
mention that before. So are you suggesting I remind them of the
35 day deadline now, before it's expired? From what you say,
this is a Code of Practice and as such advisory rather than
binding? Tactically it might make sense to wait until we are
closer to the expiry of that period?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page