Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 29th Jun 17, 12:13 PM
    • 1,240Posts
    • 869Thanks
    CB1979
    London Parking Solutions (PCN Parking solutions - Hove/paymypcn.net)
    • #1
    • 29th Jun 17, 12:13 PM
    London Parking Solutions (PCN Parking solutions - Hove/paymypcn.net) 29th Jun 17 at 12:13 PM
    I have posted on pepipoo as well, but may as well post here as they refer to the newbies guide which I've read and think i've understood!
    anyway...

    FOR CLARITY THIS IS THE TIMELINE SO FAR...

    snapped on the 07/05/17
    LPS sent to ERAC (hire company) on the 09/05/17
    ERAC stamped received on 15/05/17
    ERAC replied to them 18/05/17
    LPS received ERAC's reply 24/05/17
    LPS sent PCN to hirer on 25/05/17
    Hirer received PCN to Hirer on 30/05/17
    Hirer appealed on 09/06/17
    Appeal rejected on 15/06/17
    Hirer emailed again to LPS on 28/06/17, stating again non-compliance due to no hire agreement being sent.
    LPS emailed on 29/06/17, again stating tough.


    photos taken @ :16:05 (with the driver sat in the car, so assuming they're using pinhole/bodycams as no one saw anyone taking snaps and they have about 10!)

    got a nice £35 charge from Enterprise for the privilege of them writing to me and passing on my details to the parking company.

    snapped on the 07/05/17
    posted on the 09/05/17
    ERAC stamped received on 15/05/17.

    basically i've just received the letter from ERAC (enterprise) but not a follow up letter from LPS and have until tomorrow to pay the £60 before it goes up to £100.

    obviously the car was parked in the bay

    example of the pics there are 2 from front on that actually show the numberplate properly, the other 7 or 8 are of as poor quality as this (also ignore the time at the top as it seems to be correct at the bottom of the pics) ...


    Last edited by CB1979; 04-07-2017 at 6:41 PM.
Page 2
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 5th Jul 17, 1:18 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    right cheers guys appeal has gone in.

    you've given me hope, but deep down i know they'll reject! haha
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Jul 17, 1:23 PM
    • 14,473 Posts
    • 22,754 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    deep down i know they'll reject! haha
    If they do, I'd love to see their reasoning. It will tee this up nicely for a complaint to the DVLA.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 7th Jul 17, 12:44 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    LPS have replied:

    The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 07/07/2017 09:59:16.

    The operator reported that...

    The appellant was the keeper.
    The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
    ANPR/CCTV was used.
    The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017.
    A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
    The ticket was issued on 07/05/2017.
    The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
    The charge is based in Contract.

    The operator made the following comments...

    THE LAND IN QUESTION IS PRIVATE AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING.

    BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGNAGE, WHICH IS DISPLAYED AT THE SITE, MOTORISTS ARE MADE AWARE THAT SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO PARK AT THE SITE, THEN A VALID PARKING PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES.

    IN THE EVENT THAT A PERMIT IS NOT CLEARLY DISPLAYED, THEN THE MOTORIST BY WAY OF AFFIRMATION, HAS AGREED TO PAY THE OPERATOR A FIXED AGREED UPON SUM OF MONEY. IN ESSENCE THIS SUM IS A CORE CONTRACTUAL PRICE TERM.

    SHOULD THE MOTORIST NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING, THEN THEY ARE FREE TO REMOVE THEIR VEHICLE FROM THE SITE AND TO PARK AT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION.

    AS PER THE OPERATORS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PARKING PERMIT AT THE TIME OF THE UNAUTHORISED PARKING EVENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE VEHICLE IS PARKED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE OPERATOR’S SIGNAGE ADVISING OF THE REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY A VALID PERMIT.

    AS THE APPELLANT WAS THE HIRER OF THE MATERIAL VEHICLE, A FULLY COMPLIANT NOTICE TO HIRER WAS SENT AFTER THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE HIRE COMPANY AS KEEPER AND THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AN APPEAL BASED ON RECEIPT OF THIS DOCUMENT, THIS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE OPERATOR’S EVIDENCE. THE ISSUING AGENT OBSERVED THE VEHICLE TEN MINUTES BEFORE ISSUANCE AND AS THE VEHICLE’S OCCUPANTS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A VALID PERMIT TO PARK HERE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE IMAGE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE LACK OF A PERMIT EVEN FROM THE FAR DISTANCE IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A COPY RETROSPECTIVELY WHICH FURTHER CONFIRMS THEY WERE NOT A PERMIT HOLDER AND WERE CORRECTLY ISSUED THIS NOTICE. ANY ASPECTS OF THE APPEAL REGARDING THE OPERATOR’S EMPLOYEE: THE ISSUING AGENT, THEIR ACTIVITY WHILST ON SITE OR THE RELAY OF THE TERMS APPLIED HERE IS FULLY REFUTED AS THE OPERATOR IS A LONG STANDING MEMBER OF THE IPC’S APPROVED OPERATOR SCHEME AND AS A RESULT ALL ASPECTS OF ENFORCEMENT ON THIS SITE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THEM PRIOR TO ENFORCEMENT TAKING PLACE.

    FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 7th Jul 17, 1:08 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    no idea how they can say:
    they've acted in accordance of PoFA (when they haven't sent the hire agreement?)
    the photos prove there wasn't a permit on display (you can't see anything due to the poor quality of photos)
    the operator was there for 10mins beforehand (surely they need proof)
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 7th Jul 17, 1:13 PM
    • 3,161 Posts
    • 3,196 Thanks
    DoaM
    With an IAS appeal all the operator needs to do is respond to the appeal in semi-legible English and the IAS will find for the operator.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 7th Jul 17, 5:56 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    yeah, I get that, do i bother replying to their reply?
    If so, do i just call them out in plain layman's terms or do i have to refer to specifics again?

    do i tackle each point (and subsequently repeat myself) "PoFA wasn't followed, as a hire agreement wasn't included as per Para 13/14", etc etc

    also where does the burden of proof fall? them to prove the driver didn't have a permit, or the driver to prove they did?
    if the photos are so poor, you can't make out the dashboard, can the driver say "a permit was there, prove it wasn't".
    It's the same as them saying the operator was there for 10 minutes beforehand, surely they should've furnished a photo to prove that was the case at the time of PCN?

    if they do indeed have a video lasting 20mins, can they produce that now or in court? or does their evidence only allow them to submit what was on the PCN and the paymypcn site at the time?
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 10th Jul 17, 1:16 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    any advice?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 2:15 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    do i tackle each point (and subsequently repeat myself) "PoFA wasn't followed, as a hire agreement wasn't included as per Para 13/14", etc etc
    Yes I would start at the top and call them out in bullet points, on everything, starting with:
    The operator reported that...

    The appellant was the keeper. - Answer - no, I was the hirer only and the operator knows this, having obtained my details from the hire firm, ERAC. The operator is not entitled to assume who was driving and they have not made that out as an argument anyway. Their 'prima facie' case admits they are trying to rely upon the POFA.
    The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA. - then they have failed (para 13/14 of Sch4 applies).
    ANPR/CCTV was used - no, it wasn't. The IAS can see for themselves this was a hand-held camera as the (very blurry) pictures are shown from various angles and not from ANPR or CCTV.
    The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017 - but no 'Notice to Hirer' was posted, and none of the statutory enclosures defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA were ever served, nor shown in evidence.
    The ticket was issued on 07/05/2017 - no ticket was issued, not even to ERAC/nor on the windscreen, on that date.
    The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA - no it wasn't, because they knew I was the hirer, and therefore to follow the POFA they had to enclose the hire agreement with a 'Notice to Hirer', instead.
    The charge is based in Contract - there was no contract breached and no evidence of a lack of permit or even a photo taken on the day of the wording of any sign (the alleged contract), from what the operator admits is the 'far distance'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-07-2017 at 2:20 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 10th Jul 17, 2:46 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    thanks again coupon!

    however with regards
    The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017 - but no 'Notice to Hirer' was posted, and none of the statutory enclosures defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA were ever served, nor shown in evidence.


    a NtH was sent 25/05/17 (and received by myself on the 30/05/17) however it didn't contain any of the information required by POFA.

    for info again this is the correspondence (up until IAS)

    snapped on the 07/05/17
    LPS sent to NtK ERAC (hire company) on the 09/05/17
    ERAC stamped received on 15/05/17
    ERAC replied to them 18/05/17
    LPS received ERAC's reply 24/05/17
    LPS sent PCN to hirer on 25/05/17
    Hirer received PCN to Hirer on 30/05/17
    Hirer appealed on 09/06/17
    Appeal rejected on 15/06/17
    Hirer emailed again to LPS on 28/06/17, stating again non-compliance due to no hire agreement being sent.
    LPS emailed on 29/06/17, again stating tough.
    Last edited by CB1979; 10-07-2017 at 2:48 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 3:32 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Was it called a Notice to Hirer and did it comply (not just re the enclosures) did it comply with the requirements for a NTH, in wording and deadlines (should give you 21 days, not 28, etc).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 10th Jul 17, 3:34 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    it was only this, it was entitled Notice to Hirer, but didn't contain any hire agreement, etc.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 3:43 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, so just amend your bullet points and say that the 'NTH' didn't enclose any of the required documents that are prescribed under para 13/14 of Sch4 of the POFA 2012 and if the IAS Assessor is minded to 'assume' they did, this is not the case and such documents were not within the prima facie case evidence either.

    Then list the other obvious stuff about blurry photos that even the operator admits were taken from the 'far distance' and show no signage terms on the day nor clear evidence of a permit. Retrospective proof of a permit is not indicative of never having a permit on display, it is merely something not worth trying with IPC firms because they pretend they can't cancel retrospectively. Hence no appeal with the permit would have been worth trying, and in any case you are the hirer and the permit would have been place on the dash by the driver (not a hirer).

    Just pull apart their basic evidence case, blow by blow.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 10th Jul 17, 4:22 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    Thanks again (getting boring saying that!! haha)

    before I submit, a quick look over if you may (not sure if i should mention the "agent" or not)

    I wish to reply to the points listed.

    The appellant was the keeper. – this is incorrect, I was the hirer only and the operator knows this, having obtained my details from the hire firm, Enterprise Cars aka ERAC. The operator is not entitled to assume who was driving and they have not made that out as an argument anyway. Their 'prima facie' case admits they are trying to rely upon the PoFA.
    The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA. - then LPS have failed due to non-compliance of PoFA (para 13/14 of Sch4 applies).
    ANPR/CCTV was used - no, it wasn't. The IAS can see for themselves this was a hand-held camera as the (very blurry) pictures are shown from various angles and not from ANPR or CCTV.
    The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017 – this was sent to ERAC, a PCN entitled 'Notice to Hirer' was posted on 25/05/17 however none of the statutory enclosures defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA were ever served, nor shown in evidence, therefore non-compliance with PoFA means this wasn’t a valid Notice to Hirer either.
    The ticket was issued on 07/05/2017 – Photographs were taken on this date, however no ticket has been issued on that date, not even to ERAC/nor on the windscreen (as per the very blurry photos).
    The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA - no it wasn't, because they knew I was the hirer, and therefore to follow the PoFA they had to enclose the hire agreement with a 'Notice to Hirer', instead which LPS has failed to do.
    The charge is based in Contract - there was no contract breached and no evidence of a lack of permit or even a photo taken on the day of the wording of any sign (the alleged contract), from what the operator admits is the 'far distance'.

    No proof has been provided that an issuing agent observed the vehicle 10 minutes beforehand, no photographic evidence has been provided showing the vehicle was there for 10 minutes beforehand and more importantly NOT showing a valid permit. No evidence has been provided to show a valid permit wasn’t displayed, the photographic evidence is poor at best.

    The integrity of the issuing agent shall be put into question, the evidence provided of various photographs over a six minute period (only three photos with the same time stamp show the front of the vehicle and the photos are so poor, you can’t see the permit or any detail of the vehicle), the agent has used predatory tactics by taking sneaky photos instead of simply asking the occupants of the vehicle to see their permit, of which the agent could have then taken a nice clear photo. Again, I reiterate this is a serious breach of the IPC Code of Practice of using predatory tactics, resulting in sanctioning points to LPS.

    However all this is irrelevant, as LPS have not proven who was driving, they have not provided the documentation (namely the hire agreement) defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, nor shown in evidence, therefore non-compliance of PoFA means PoFA cannot be used to obtain keeper/hirer liability.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 4:32 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks fine, worth a try in your case as the photos are so terrible.

    I would avoid saying

    However all this is irrelevant,
    maybe change to:

    However the main issue, as LPS have not proven who was driving, and have chosen to make their prima facie case hang on the POFA, is that they have not provided the documentation (namely the hire agreement) defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, nor shown in evidence, therefore non-compliance of PoFA means PoFA cannot be used to obtain keeper/hirer liability.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 10th Jul 17, 4:45 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    sent off again, cheers (again!)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 4:56 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bear in mind the odds are stacked against you, as this is IAS, but so what, if you lose you still don't have to pay.

    Your case had some elements worth trying though, the combo of the dreadful photos and the lack of NTH compliance made it worth a try.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 10th Jul 17, 5:13 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    yeah, i appreciate all the help.

    would rather it got cancelled than them try and chase 6 years down the line! haha

    as they have my work address, can i notify them at a later date to change my address to my home address?

    Obviously i don't want any threatening letters turning up at work or court papers, etc (especially if i've moved on from there!)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 5:15 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you could do.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 17th Jul 17, 9:33 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    just an update, that there's no update (I know you all like to be kept updated )

    i replied on the 11/07/17, so I think they have until tomorrow (??? - 5 working days) to reply to my reply, then it gets sent to ajudicator.
    • CB1979
    • By CB1979 1st Aug 17, 1:25 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 869 Thanks
    CB1979
    DUM DUM DUMMMMMMM

    decision made and now ignore until court papers.

    The adjudicator made their decision on 28/07/2017.

    It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

    For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage to the front of the vehicle makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all.

    Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

    It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was stationary at the site for a period of time with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued. I have also considered the manner in which the PCN was served on the Appellant and, despite the Appellant's claims to the contrary, I am satisfied that the correspondence complies with current guidelines.

    I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,903Posts Today

8,388Users online

Martin's Twitter