Town and City Parking - Here's a new one...

davelannen

.. at least I can't find a similar set of circumstances anywhere on the forum.

I received a PCN from TCP the other day with photographic evidence of my car entering the local Asda car park at 09.30 and exiting at 20.09 that evening. No dispute there - it stacks up with the evidence of store receipts - but what they fail to record is the fact that the car also left the car park shortly after 09.30 and returned shortly before 20.09. I've emailed them to invite them to look into the error but I will not appeal by letter as required by their procedures as I don't accept that there's anything to appeal against (I've been careful to make it clear that I am NOT appealng a decision) and I'm damned if I'll waste a stamp. I've had a response to my email so I can demonstrate that they're in possession of the facts even if they choose to ignore them on the grounds that I didn't send them by post.

I've read all the stuff about PCNs having no legal status and I can demonstrate that someone else made card purchases at the store around the times indicated (I wasn't using the car - another score for me), while I made a purchase at an out-of-town retail park later that afternoon.

I indicated in my email that I wouldn't be responding to any further communication from TCP or their representatives until such time as they've obtained the appropriate legal authority but my question is this: am I doing the right thing by refusing to play ball (I assume so) and, if so, at what point do I have a bona fide harassment case? Keep in mind that this is the result of poor (or mischievous) data management on their part, hence my stated belief that there is no case to answer.

Opinions on the particular nuance of this case appreciated.

trisontana

What you do is stop taking these clowns seriously and ignore them from now on.

Coupon-mad

We have seen this before. Here's one similar query with someone 'worried' about getting a potential fake PCN for daring to return to Tesco!:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/51886273#Comment_51886273

and another one with the 'heinous crime' of 2 visits to the Co-op (see post 421 onwards a bit but don't bother to read the whole loooong thread!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/41782290#Comment_41782290

and another one with Parking Eye this time, and two visits by the same car:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/49779331#Comment_49779331

and here's one from CAG forums:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?344670-TPS-Parking-enforcment-notice-for-no-offense

And the Watchdog clip, linked in our sticky thread called 'PPC letters & threats' (read it if you haven't already!), is about someone returning to the same car park twice as well. This sets the scene:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2010/04/mcdonalds_parking.html

then also this clip gives the legal side:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

Yes you are doing the right thing to ignore the scam now, and have done more than you needed to. Could have just ignored it from the start!

But if you are serious about pursuing an harassment case then go for it! Engage them in a few letters and then wait and see what other threatograms arrive, bearing in mind you have told them from the outset that the car was there twice. A few reasonable letters from you, compared to unwarranted threatograms from them, should be enough to convince a County Court judge that you should get a few hundred quid in a Small Claim if you are up for it!

give_them_FA

Exactly what Trisontana says, Dave. You are behaving as though this was a real ticket. It's not. It's a totally unenforceable fake. You don't need to waste any more time on it, simply ignore all the bullsh*t they send you. They WILL go away when they realise that, despite the first impression you gave them, they are not actually fooling you.

peter_the_piper

davelannen wrote: »

.. at least I can't find a similar set of circumstances anywhere on the forum.

I received a PCN from TCP the other day with photographic evidence of my car entering the local Asda car park at 09.30 and exiting at 20.09 that evening. No dispute there - it stacks up with the evidence of store receipts - but what they fail to record is the fact that the car also left the car park shortly after 09.30 and returned shortly before 20.09. I've emailed them to invite them to look into the error but I will not appeal by letter as required by their procedures as I don't accept that there's anything to appeal against (I've been careful to make it clear that I am NOT appealng a decision) and I'm damned if I'll waste a stamp. I've had a response to my email so I can demonstrate that they're in possession of the facts even if they choose to ignore them on the grounds that I didn't send them by post.

I've read all the stuff about PCNs having no legal status and I can demonstrate that someone else made card purchases at the store around the times indicated (I wasn't using the car - another score for me), while I made a purchase at an out-of-town retail park later that afternoon.

I indicated in my email that I wouldn't be responding to any further communication from TCP or their representatives until such time as they've obtained the appropriate legal authority but my question is this: am I doing the right thing by refusing to play ball (I assume so) and, if so, at what point do I have a bona fide harassment case? Keep in mind that this is the result of poor (or mischievous) data management on their part, hence my stated belief that there is no case to answer.

Opinions on the particular nuance of this case appreciated.

Do you feel like getting your own back? if you do and can prove the car was at anotther place and did not return till just before 20-09 then a complaint to trading standards is called for. Its been suspected for a long time that these cameras are programmed to record ins and outs but also to ignore the 1st out and 2nd in. With proof it could get interesting.

give_them_FA

Yes indeed. I believe a firm were prosecuted for doing that. OPC if I remember correctly. Worth doing if the car has an "alibi" for the day.

peter_the_piper

And to digress, don't forget the parking company which modified the chip to not count some of the money put in. There is no end to the schemes these blighters get up to.

Half_way

I would go to the Asda in question with the 'ticket' and tell them that you fully refute the charges, if they try and fob you off with the its nothign to do with us, as another company manages the car park, ask them if this company is a contracter for them and is working on behalf of that Asda with their full permision.
Then tell them that they are responsable for the actions of their contractors and employees, and that you are telling Asda that you dont want to hear nay more about this matter, and you will be reporting it to trading standards.
the next step is when letter two arrives, tell Asda that you are being harrassed and if they, and their agents dont stop you may take legal action against them for harrasment

LincolnshireYokel

There was a ruling a while ago..............oh yes Van Spall vs British Waterways Marinas

Nursery owner Ann Van Spall was charged £250 by clamping firm Sector Security Ltd after parking her car at Hull Marina.

1. ​
   A beaming Ann and Ray Van Spall outside Hull Crown court after they won their clamping court case.

She argued parking signs at the marina were inadequate, winning a county court judgement against Sector Security. However, the clamping firm was dissolved before she could get the money back. Now, Mrs Van Spall, 60, has won a court victory against Hull Marina operators British Waterways Marinas Ltd as land owners brace themselves for similar claims from motorists clamped on their land.

In a hearing at Hull County Court, Deputy District Judge Paul Beevers agreed the private company should be held liable. He said: "This is not a case where Sector Security could be called specialised contractors, where British Waterways may be able to say: 'We're not liable for their actions." Therefore, British Waterways are, on the face of it, liable to repay the £250. "British Waterways are liable in civil law for the acts of its contractors, and Sector Security are contractors."


Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA, said: "The more people who use the small claims court to do this sort of the thing, the better.

"Land owners have to bear some responsibility for what they allowed to happen on their land – they can't just agree a contract with a clamping firm and think it absolves them of responsibility.



Quoting case law at big supermarkets always puts the sh*ts up them..................

davelannen

Some interesting stuff - appreciate the responses. I know I should ignore it but the troublemaker in me won't shut up until he's properly explored opportunities to give these people something back.

Since posting, it's come to my attention that a local partnership operated by the city/county council and the police have a traffic camera located at the entrance to the store car park so I may look into following it up with an FOI request...

TrickyWicky

If it were me I'd only respond on receipt of a court order / summons. Until then the PPC can get stuffed. You're under no legal obligation to communicate with them. You are under no legal obligation to answer any of their questions or prove your innocence and even when questioned by the police you have the statutory right to remain silent. Thats a right that the PPCs are unable to override.