Hemel Sportspace PCN

U.N.C.L.E.

Hi,

I've been unlucky enough to receive a PCN for my company car from parking at my Gym - Hemel Hempstead Sportspace - at the end of March. It was sent directly to the H/Office of my employer. I am a fully paid up member of the gym and have been for years.

They introduced a new system last year that requires the driver to enter their reg number on entry to the sports center, to get up to 3 hours free parking. I've done this several times, and tbh cannot recall if I did / did not do it on this occasion - I guess it could have slipped my mind.

It's a stupid system anyway as the machine is in a publicly accessible area - so anyone can get 3 hours free parking!!!!

The PCN states:
'We therefore require payment of this Parking Charge Notice, in accordance with the Parking Terms and Conditions clearly stated on the signage: "Maximum 3 hours free parking for authorised users only"'

It also confirms I was there for a period of 40-45 mins - well within 3 hours, notwithstanding my active membership!

I sent a letter of appeal to the PPC - 'CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD', which confirmed I was the driver with my home address etc..., in which i asked them to dismiss the charge since I am an 'authorised user' as stated in the T&Cs, as per my paid up membership of the center! I also suggested that I believed I had entered the details into the system. They refute the latter point, based on their records, going on to state that their machines were working perfectly at the relevant date/time.

Then I was looking on here and came across all the advice that states not to appeal confirming the driver details etc..... (annoyed with myself for not checking here first!).

The PPC rejected my written argument with a POPLA code.

Original PCN that went to my employer had an 'Incident Date' in last week of March, and PCN 'Issue Date' of 2nd week of May - does that give me any grounds for appeal to POPLA? The PPC know that I was the driver from initial appeal letter rather than the keeper (annoyed with myself!).

I also received a revised PCN with the same number on it but with a new 'Issue Date' of the last week in May. Both the appeal rejection and the new PCN came to my home address as a result of my initial appeal letter.

Although I can accept I may have made a mistake, and in fact support some control over parking in the centre car park, the PPC seem completely unwilling to accept the fact that I am a member and have every right to park in the car park. That's just unreasonable in my opinion!

Have I got any chance of a successful appeal, or am I better off just paying the reduced charge and forgetting about it? - exactly what I would like to avoid - and then cancelling my membership obviously

Thanks for your help in advance - I would appreciate any valuable comments.

da_rule

The steps are relatively simple. Your next step is to appeal to POPLA. The grounds for appeal are the main ones listed in the Newbies sticky thread, such as: no genuine pre-estimate of loss, inadequate signage, no authority to levy a charge etc.

Also, go to the gym and ask them to cancel the PCN. There seems to be quite a few people from this gym on here recently. Maybe you can all approach the gym together and try to convince them to change their parking procedure.

Guys_Dad

That's 3 threads on the same topic currently running. Try reading the advice on the other 2 while waiting for a direct reply to your point.

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That's 3 threads on the same topic currently running. Try reading the advice on the other 2.

Would be easier surely for people to just search the forum than start another thread about the same place again. U.N.C.L.E. please just use 'search this forum' next to 'forum tools' above the sticky threads on page one of the forum (which is only ONE click away). Once you've found the 'search this forum' heading on page one, please just put in 'Hemel' as a keyword as we can't keep saying the same thing every day. This car park is getting to be as prolific as the Peel Centre.

Your appeal options are the same as on all the other Hemel threads and the same wording as shown in the NEWBIES thread. It's not about the detail of what happened!

da_rule

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Would be easier surely for people to just search the forum than start another thread about the same place again.

Especially when the other thread was about 5 posts down the forum.

Coupon-mad

That's what I thought too...didn't even need a 'search' but I have explained how to search anyway to find the other one as well.

bazster

Furthermore, complain vociferously to your councillor. "Sportspace" is in fact Dacorum Sports Trust, but the site is still owned by Dacorum Borough Council, and Dacorum Sports Trust relies on a grant from DBC to operate, so although Dacorum Sports Trust leases the site from DBC, DBC still has a lot of clout with them.

It's also pertinent that Dacorum Sports Trust is a charity, so you should complain directly to them that by engaging CEL to levy £100 fake fines they are causing serious harm to the the people they are supposed to help, i.e. users of the facility who inadvertently fall foul of CEL's arbitrary "rules". If they give you the brush-off, escalate the complaint to the Charity Commission.

U.N.C.L.E.

Thanks for your replies.

I was trying hard not to be someone that hadn't read the advice - I can imagine (and see) that happens a lot - I did read alot, but it appeared more aimed at people that had visited here first (i.e. before letting on that they were in fact the driver) - given the references to NTK etc...

I find the whole thing very confusing, which I don't think is unusual, also having read a number of posts on here.

I'm just trying to ensure that I'm doing what I should be given that a simple explanation of why I wasn't actually in the wrong doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy the process. That in itself seems silly to me.

Given that they know I was the driver based on my first appeal letter, and that I am a company car driver (so not the registered keeper), is it relevant to claim 'As the registered keeper'? It doesn't seem so at face value, but perhaps I am being naive.

Coupon-mad

Nope you are right so you just change it to 'I am the driver' at the start of your POPLA appeal.

And as for what to include in a winning POPLA appeal, follow da_rule's advice and click on 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES sticky thread:

da_rule wrote: »

The steps are relatively simple. Your next step is to appeal to POPLA. The grounds for appeal are the main ones listed in the Newbies sticky thread, such as: no genuine pre-estimate of loss, inadequate signage, no authority to levy a charge etc.

Also, go to the gym and ask them to cancel the PCN. There seems to be quite a few people from this gym on here recently. Maybe you can all approach the gym together and try to convince them to change their parking procedure.

But do also read the other threads about this car park as they really are only on page two or three, I just saw them myself when looking back thru the forum.

da_rule

U.N.C.L.E. wrote: »

I'm just trying to ensure that I'm doing what I should be given that a simple explanation of why I wasn't actually in the wrong doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy the process. That in itself seems silly to me.

It seems silly to everyone, but that is the game. The probable reason why POPLA won't accept mitigation is because the PPC's and the BPA (who fund POPLA) have decided that this would result in too many cancelled PCN's.

nigelbb

da_rule wrote: »

It seems silly to everyone, but that is the game. The probable reason why POPLA won't accept mitigation is because the PPC's and the BPA (who fund POPLA) have decided that this would result in too many cancelled PCN's.

It would not be correct for POPLA to consider mitigation as that is something that only the PPC can take into account. If POPLA were to accept mitigation it would be telling the PPCs how to run their business & in effect saying the motorist may have broken your rules but because of x y or z you should let them off. Don't forget the POPLA decision is binary as either the appeal is upheld or it is refused. Courts don't do mitigation either when it comes to guilt or innocence but only consider mitigation when it comes to sentence.