PCN for not parked correctly within the markings of a bay space

spacester

Hi guys

Newbie here, first PCN.

My car was parked at a station car park this morning operated/policed by NCP (ticket paid for via the "Dash" telephone service), and the car windscreen had a PCN for not parking within the bay markings. The bay markings in question are very confusing and not at all clear where the bay is - see the image:
imgur.com/INu3Rfr

Very sorry for not putting the images in the thread, but I got a message saying as a new user I can't post with links in it.

As you can see, there are two overlapping bays that are marked on the floor in somewhat faded white paint (still quite visible). All four of my wheels were inside both "bays" - i.e both sets of white side markings.

At the time of parking, there was a car properly parked to the left of this image in the bay, and another car parked at an angle on the right of the image, where the other bay cuts across the straight one. The car was quite far forward, to allow the guy on the right to get out easily - in fact, it was parked in such a way to *not* cause an obstruction to other users of the car park. There are no painted markings at the front of the bay saying where it ends, and there is a little more than a foot of gravel between the tarmac and the (broken) fence. My car was about an inch from the (broken) fence, but not touching it. See the images below:
imgur.com/oqrVdV7
imgur.com/BCXzEi5

The signage present with the conditions of parking (contract) is very high, and has very small text. So small and high that a legible in picture of the T&Cs cannot be made with a phone, when standing directly underneath it. It can barely be read from the ground. It is the only sign in the car park with the T&Cs, directly at facing the main entrance.

I plan on appealing the PCN with the following text:
"The claim states the car was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay space. This appeal is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. This is because the markings were misleading and unclear, with more than one set of bay markings overlapping one another. All four wheels of the car were within both sets of painted bay markings on the floor, and the car was parked responsibly in such a way to not cause obstruction of other car park users. The car was parked in the only way possible to keep it within all of the bay markings present. "

Any advice on whether I should include the poor signage, one whether I stand a chance at winning with the above arguments, and on specific wording on the appeal. The fine itself is for £75, £50 if I pay within 14 days. This is an unreasonable amount, in my opinion.



Thanks in advance!

Redx

you can use broken web links to tinypic or photobucket for pictures and members here will provide clicky links

what is wrong with the advice and template appeal letter in the NEWBIES sticky thread at the top of this forum ?

and which idiot told you its a FINE ?, when its a speculative invoice from NCP, a private PPC

their lower charge also seems to break the BPA CoP too

clicky links now below

http://imgur.com/INu3Rfr

http://imgur.com/oqrVdV7

http://imgur.com/BCXzEi5

spacester

Redx wrote: »

you can use broken web links to tinypic or photobucket for pictures and members here will provide clicky links

Many thanks for a quick reply! I didn't realise that there were specific image uploaders to use, very sorry. I just used the one I know about. The links above can be copy/pasted into a browser address bar, but if the admins wanted to be very kind, then making them into proper links would be ace :-)

Redx wrote: »

what is wrong with the advice and template appeal letter in the NEWBIES sticky thread at the top of this forum ?

I looked at it, and it didn't seem to cover the specifics of this particular PCN - i.e poorly marked bays. It seemed to be most relevant for overstays, which this was not (£6.10 for a full day of parking, driver returning 9 hours before it ran out).

Redx

the newbies thread contains info for NCP, is not just for overstays but covers all aspects of parking, contains the 3 main appeal points , also has links explaining various aspects and the lower charge is not what it should be according to the BPA CoP

it also tells you to appeal on day 21 too

point c) talks about poor signage

I have added clicky links but I did not know about imgur , I do now !

and its not a fine either, its an invoice

hope that helps

the forum admins here wont get involved , period - trust me

spacester

Redx wrote: »

and which idiot told you its a FINE ?, when its a speculative invoice from NCP, a private PPC

their lower charge also seems to break the BPA CoP too

Thanks, yes it is an invoice I guess, rather than "fine". They would have to take me to the small claims court (or maybe give it to debt collectors - yuck! - not sure of the process/law here). I would rather not let it get that far, as I do think it's unfair of them to issue a PCN given the confusing nature of the bay markings, and the fact that the car was parked in such a way to not cause an obstruction (driver could have just parked square in the bay, blocking in the other guy, and would probably have been in a better position to appeal!).

I was a little surprised that the lower charge was not 1/2 of £75. Is this worth noting in the appeal?

spacester

Thanks for the clicky links, there is one more at the top of hte post:
imgur.com/INu3Rfr

Redx

ok, added the 3rd link for you above

you can always add points of your own, bear in mind its a template, not the 5th commandment in stone

so add a D) mentioning poor marking of bays or whatever

the fact you paid is not relevant (neither is what happened on the day which is what it tells you in the sticky threads)

the contravention is not about payment, but "rule breaking" , so they can maximise their profits

if the land is not relevant land, then POFA 2012 may not even apply, who knows ? , either way its a speculative invoice and not a fine , as only a court or judge can FINE you , and this has been near neither party

spacester

Many thanks for the help with images!

Redx wrote: »

if the land is not relevant land, then POFA 2012 may not even apply, who knows ? , either way its a speculative invoice and not a fine , as only a court or judge can FINE you , and this has been near neither party

I don't understand what "relevant land" is!

Redx

spacester wrote: »

I don't understand what "relevant land" is!

in that case you have not researched POFA 2012 which I did mention

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for 'relevant railway byelaws'.

And re-read the newbies thread as I specifically mention NCP and when to appeal and not to talk about what happened at all. The circumstances DO NOT MATTER.

spacester

Got it on "relevant land" and POFA 2012. Many thanks.

So what do you think the chances are of them cancelling the PCN, given that the bay markings were not clear?