PCM - Are they an Approved Operator???

Bazza1975

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Coupon-mad didn't mean that you should actually name the RK, only that you should clarify whether the RK is a family member or whether the car is registered to car hire/leasing company.

The advice is different if it's a hire/lease car.

Good progress on tracking down the landowner btw - that all sounds fine

Ah ok, I see. It's NOT registered to a hire/leasing company. Does that narrow it down enough?

Although I've tracked down the Company/Developer re-generating the area, I'm not sure this unadopted road is owned by them. Will see what they come back with.

In the meantime, I spoke to Land Registry and spoke to a very helpful chap who appears to have experienced similar situations that I currently I find myself in and has never paid a penny in "invoices" haha!. I guess in his line of work this issue must come up quite frequently! So we had a good old chat about this and he basically told me very similar to what you guys have been advising me to do. Anyway, he had a look for the road in question, and the road is unregistered. So it could mean it belongs to no one (in which case PCM are acting illegally), or it may need much further extensive investigation into trying the find the deeds etc... but even then there was no guarantee that they would find anything anyway.

So unless I got positive info from the Developer on the Estate about who owns the Road, I guess I just sit tight and wait for the NTK before appealing - which means PCM need to show me proof of who owns the land/road and the deeds, and agreed contract between the Landowner and them right?

Redx

wrong, but they have to prove it to IAS if you take the issue to the IAS (although they may redact the info) and you challenge this point (no contract , no locus etc)

they would also have to prove it to a judge if it ever got that far as long as you made them do so

but prove it to you ? - not a chance on that I am afraid

Bazza1975

Redx wrote: »

wrong, but they have to prove it to IAS if you take the issue to the IAS (although they may redact the info) and you challenge this point (no contract , no locus etc)

they would also have to prove it to a judge if it ever got that far as long as you made them do so

but prove it to you ? - not a chance on that I am afraid

Oh ok, sorry. Still taking it all in so please bare with me.

So assuming the Developer I have contacted don't come up trumps, there's not a lot more can do on the land owner front is there? I just send an appeal after I receive the NTK letter?

Redx

Bazza1975 wrote: »

So assuming the Developer I have contacted don't come up trumps, there's not a lot more can do on the land owner front is there? I just send an appeal after I receive the NTK letter?

correct, but if you had read that template appeal you would notice it asks them to produce this evidence (does not mean they will do so) , in other words it asks them to either prove their case, cancel, or issue an appeal code

assuming they dont prove their case but dont cancel either, you ask the mediator to check for this proof in your actual appeal to the IAS (On the basis they have to prove it to somebody in authority if they wish to win) , for this you need the IAS code

Bazza1975

So it would only go to POPLA if the land is definitely Privately owned. But in this case it is more likely to go to IAS because at the moment the road in unregistered and there is no proof to the contrary?

Redx

Bazza1975 wrote: »

So it would only go to POPLA if the land is definitely Privately owned. But in this case it is more likely to go to IAS because at the moment the road in unregistered and there is no proof to the contrary?

nope, both are used for private land, but one is for BPA members and the other is for IPC members

2 approved operators (trade bodies) for private land appeals, the BPA and the IPC

2 appeals systems for those 2 operators (trade bodies), POPLA and the IAS

as I pointed out in my first reply to you, your parking company is under the IPC and so the IAS for all private land appeals, nothing to do with the BPA or popla

Coupon-mad

And that's why I wanted to see the sign, to see if PCM (who only this year jumped ship from the BPA to the IPC) had put in the newer version prescribed by the IPC - and unfortunately they have. But it's relevant that you say:

' the sign is half way up a road on the entrance to a Housing Estate car park. The car has been parked in this same spot before on the understanding that the restrictions are beyond the signage and not before, as there are no road markings to state specifically where the restrictions are or start. There is only one sign on that side of the road and no road markings anywhere.' We are guessing from what you've said, there's no entrance sign delineating the private land and where restrictions start so how is a motorist to know where public highway ends and 'private land with enforcement' starts?

What we really want to see is the NTK when it arrives in the next month or so, in the hope that it talks about breach of terms/failure to comply or 'contravention'.

Bazza1975

Redx wrote: »

nope, both are used for private land, but one is for BPA members and the other is for IPC members

2 approved operators (trade bodies) for private land appeals, the BPA and the IPC

2 appeals systems for those 2 operators (trade bodies), POPLA and the IAS

as I pointed out in my first reply to you, your parking company is under the IPC and so the IAS for all private land appeals, nothing to do with the BPA or popla

Ok yes I remember now Red. I notice the appeals through POPLA have 100% successful. Is it the same with IAS?

I've just had a read through this thread hxxp://forumsmoneysavingexpert com/showthread.php?p=65096091&highlight=#post65096091 and it seems a little harder (with tighter time frames) to successfully appeal. Should I be slightly concerned or am I worrying unnecessarily??

Am still confused by this RK thing. If after 28 days they can then get the RK's details from the DVLA anyway and send a letter to the RK to enforce the Invoice, what difference does it make whether they know who the RK is or even who parked the car?

Apologies if I'm going over old ground here, but I have honestly been trying to read and understand it, and I still fail to see relevance of this and how it is in any way beneficial.

Bazza1975

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And that's why I wanted to see the sign, to see if PCM (who only this year jumped ship from the BPA to the IPC) had put in the newer version prescribed by the IPC - and unfortunately they have. But it's relevant that you say:

' the sign is half way up a road on the entrance to a Housing Estate car park. The car has been parked in this same spot before on the understanding that the restrictions are beyond the signage and not before, as there are no road markings to state specifically where the restrictions are or start. There is only one sign on that side of the road and no road markings anywhere.' We are guessing from what you've said, there's no entrance sign delineating the private land and where restrictions start so how is a motorist to know where public highway ends and 'private land with enforcement' starts?

What we really want to see is the NTK when it arrives in the next month or so, in the hope that it talks about breach of terms/failure to comply or 'contravention'.

Ok thanks for that C-M. I can attach a link to googlemaps which shows this sign half way up the road with not a road marking or single other notice in sight at the beginning of the road.

Would that be of any use to you?

Bazza1975

Linky to the entrance to the road. (although might look like a yellow line on the right hand side of the road, it's just lots of small yellow leaves!)

Actually - it won't bloody work!! Can't attach the link, no matter if I use hxxp or how many spaces I put in it! Paaaah!