PCM - Are they an Approved Operator???

Bazza1975

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Ooh now that will be handy.

I am at work so others will add more but in your reply telling him what the problem in fact is, (the opposite of what he thinks) you must ask him to please clarify:

- what is the reason for the parking charges, has PCM been installed to deter breaches of rules or to issue fines?
- what happens to the money from the parking charges? Who keeps it and if it is split please explain in detail what it is used towards?
- who has the contract with PCM, is it the Council or the regeneration company and you would like to see a copy of it by return so you can see the scope of rights assigned to PCM and the intention behind the scheme. If the Council refuse to provide this, you will do a FOI request separately for it as it's needed for you to make an informed decision about your appeal.

So a few days ago, I sent an email requesting the contract between the local Council and PCM, and this is the reply I got....

Dear xxxxxx,

Thank you for your request for information Ref: FOI xxxxxx which has been forwarded to the Parking Services for a response.

Please note that FOI Requests will receive a response within 20 working days as required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party.

Otherwise, if you would rather not have this considered under the Freedom of Information, please contact Parking Services directly on: ParkingServices @ XXXXX.gov.uk

Kind regards,


I don't get that last paragraph?! If I would rather have what not considered???

bazster

Bazza1975 wrote: »

So a few days ago, I sent an email requesting the contract between the local Council and PCM, and this is the reply I got....

Dear xxxxxx,

Thank you for your request for information Ref: FOI xxxxxx which has been forwarded to the Parking Services for a response.

Please note that FOI Requests will receive a response within 20 working days as required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party.

Otherwise, if you would rather not have this considered under the Freedom of Information, please contact Parking Services directly on: ParkingServices @ XXXXX.gov.uk

Kind regards,


I don't get that last paragraph?! If I would rather have what not considered???

What they are saying is that if you simply ask "Parking Services" a question without making it a FOI request then you might get a quicker response. Although, in this instance, I suspect that response would be a 2-fingered salute, so the FOI request is the way to go.

Bazza1975

bazster wrote: »

What they are saying is that if you simply ask "Parking Services" a question without making it a FOI request then you might get a quicker response. Although, in this instance, I suspect that response would be a 2-fingered salute, so the FOI request is the way to go.

Aah I see! haha... Thanks for clarifying!

Coupon-mad

Add in a request for a map or pictogram showing the boundary of the private land where it meets the Public Highway, under FOI as well. That would help you. If the Council refuse to send the contract with PCM then come back here as there are ways to insist.

BTW several IAS appeals are being lost so get your ammo now, get the FOI requests all in quickly.

Bazza1975

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Add in a request for a map or pictogram showing the boundary of the private land where it meets the Public Highway, under FOI as well. That would help you. If the Council refuse to send the contract with PCM then come back here as there are ways to insist.

BTW several IAS appeals are being lost so get your ammo now, get the FOI requests all in quickly.

Just seen this C-M and have requested it.

We received the NTK today. Here's the pics of the front and back...

http://s1265.photobucket.com/user/Bazza75/media/IMAG2118_zps15f4365c.jpg.html

http://s1265.photobucket.com/user/Bazza75/media/IMAG2117_zps37c75c3a.jpg.html

Apologies if a bit blurry. If unreadable, let me know and I'll do them again.

Apart from the usual "breach of contract" and "no GPEOL" angle, do I have a good enough case regarding the signage, which according to the IPC Code of Practice should be at the entrance to a site where parking is not permitted to non-residents? This solitary sign on one side of the road is roughly 23 yards from the entrance! Surely that in itself is a serious enough breach to successfully appeal with? The sign just happens to be attached to a lamp post, so if that lamp post wasn't there, they would surely have to erect there own sign, presumably at the entrance. This is just lazy and pretty much entraps motorists into believing it is ok to park before you reach the sign.

http://s1265.photobucket.com/user/Bazza75/media/IMAG2077_zps2e7bf7a7.jpg.html

(that isn't our car in the pic by the way)

Signs of the highway code are always in advance of a:
Speed Limit
No Entry
Junction
Car Park
Bus Lane
Roundabout
etc...

Therefore shouldn't PPC's signs be the same?

The old PCM clamping sign is on the back of that sign. Probably doesn't really help my case, but I took a pic just in case it does.

http://s1265.photobucket.com/user/Bazza75/media/IMAG2080_zpsb2880faa.jpg.html

bod1467

You have 77 posts now. Are you still unable to post links?

Bazza1975

bod1467 wrote: »

You have 77 posts now. Are you still unable to post links?

I didn't attempt to actually, will try and edit my post...

Bazza1975

bod1467 wrote: »

You have 77 posts now. Are you still unable to post links?

Looks like I can. Thanks bod.

Coupon-mad

Apart from the usual "breach of contract" and "no GPEOL" angle

Nope that's for a POPLA appeal and we are realising there's a real difference to winning at IAS. That sign doesn't try to set out breach so no GPEOL isn't a shoo-in. See all the other PCM / IAS cases over the past week on here - at least 3 are discussing IAS appeals and at lease one was won (but a case was lost which you should read too - Daps' thread but a different PPC).

Read all the threads you cam find going back a good few pages, and search the forum for 'IAS PCM' to read current discussions about this bunch and how to hopefully avoid the issue Daps had.

The clamping sign would be worth a mention in your 'signage' paragraph. But don't make it templatey, this isn't a POPLA appeal!

Bazza1975

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope that's for a POPLA appeal and we are realising there's a real difference to winning at IAS. That sign doesn't try to set out breach so no GPEOL isn't a shoo-in. See all the other PCM / IAS cases over the past week on here - at least 3 are discussing IAS appeals and at lease one was won (but a case was lost which you should read too - Daps' thread but a different PPC).

Read all the threads you cam find going back a good few pages, and search the forum for 'IAS PCM' to read current discussions about this bunch and how to hopefully avoid the issue Daps had.

The clamping sign would be worth a mention in your 'signage' paragraph. But don't make it templatey, this isn't a POPLA appeal!

Ok thanks, will have a look through the other threads before putting in my soft appeal to PCM.

Just in the last half hour, I received another email from one of the Councillors I've been bombarding. It's the first time this one has replied to me - mainly because the other two are currently on holiday/off sick!

"I have contacted the Council's Regulatory Services officers and drawn their attention to the points you raised about the location of signs on **** ****, the lack of signage notifying motorists that ***** Road is a private road and the question of whether PCM is failing to comply with the IPC Code of Practice. The officers should be able to advise as to whether PCM are operating correctly in this area and I will inform you of this once received.

As pointed out by both Ms ***** and Cllr *****, Councillors are not in a position to intervene in disputes about parking charge notices but I have also requested that council officers provide advice on the steps that you can take to personally challenge the "invoice" and whether it has any legal status."

We'll see what she comes back with next week!