PCM Parking Ticket - Private Permit Only Car Park

AnthonyParkingPerson

Firstly - thanks for all the tips on this site. I have read carefully.
I would appreciate some help on the following situation re a ticket a pensioner friend of mine received from PCM UK Ltd.

The site is a private block of flats. Parking is only for those showing a permit. The conditions are shown on the sign :
hxxp://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/1_zps3803598e.jpg.html

The signage in my view is inadequate. My friend did not see the signs. The sign at the entrance to the car park was actually face down on the grass with another sign (from previous parking company lying on top of it face down). I am told by one of the residents that some roudy footballers playing at the adjacent school pulled the signs off on the Sunday, the day before the parking incident on the Monday.
The entrance from the road to the car park is shown in the following photo where you can see the signs on the grass:
hxxp://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/4_zpsd6844911.jpg.html

There is no other sign at the entrance.

The front door to the flats also has no signage. See next photo:
hxxp://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/8_zps76c71bf4.jpg.html

There are other signs at the site but they are either high up on posts (see next 2 photos) or are not visible en route from the parking space concerned to the front door of the flats. The second photo shows a sign on the exit from the car park to the street.
hxxp://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/10_zps1c9fe7b1.jpg.html
hxxp://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/7_zps900cff81.jpg.html


As per the flowchart, I will be advising my friend to await the NTK.
Meanwhile, can anyone offer their views in terms of defence in respect of (a) the terms shown on their sign and (b) the adequacy of the signage?

Also, any advice on dealing with PCM and the IPC would be appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.

The_Deep

The site is a private block of flats. Parking is only for those showing a permit.

Are you sure about that? Are there no owner/occupiers with leasehold rights, or tenants with rights under their ASTs.

If you lease mentions "quiet enjoyment" and parking rights you almost certainly do not need the permission of a PPC to park there. Indeed, the very act of fixing a ticket to your car may be a trespass.

What precisely does the parker's lease/AST say? Is this private property or owned by a HA?

Dee140157

[url]Http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/1_zps3803598e.jpg.html[/url]
[url]Http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/4_zpsd6844911.jpg.html[/url]
[url]Http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/8_zps76c71bf4.jpg.html[/url]
[url]Http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/10_zps1c9fe7b1.jpg.html[/url]
[url]Http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/anthonyparkingperson/media/7_zps900cff81.jpg.html[/url]

AnthonyParkingPerson

The flats are each privately owned, leasehold. Lease states each flat has right to park in a specific numbered bay providing they display their unique parking permit. Each flat is also given a visitor badge for visitors to display when parking in one of the visitor bays.
The management company for the flats has given PCM the enforcement contract for the parking. This was done to prevent abusers of the space by other parkers (it is next to a school and close to town).

Dee140157

Ok so it is the new model of signs, however the signage does indeed appear inadequate as per your photos. The fact that one sign you see on exit rather than entrance is daft!

Whatbis on the NTK will be crucial, the time scale it arrives in and what it actually says. You need to familiarise yourself with POFA12 section 8. The NTK should comply with every individual point.,

If you look at the IAS decisions thread (linked to by Crabman in his sticky near top of forum) you will several successful threads to look at.

This is definitely winnable on recent form given the extra problems with signage!

AnthonyParkingPerson

Just read POFA Sched 4. Clause 7 (2)(a) re the notice stuck on the vehicle. It states "the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".

Looking at the ticket it does indeed specify the first two items however it does not state the period of parking. Instead it just cites a date and time that the notice was issued which is a requirement of clause 7 (2)(f).

As such it is not specified for how long the person issuing the ticket observed the vehicle and hence if the driver was collecting a parking permit from a resident whether time was allowed for the driver to collect such permit and bring it back to the car to display.

Is this grounds for appeal once the notice to keeper is received?

Coupon-mad

Yes it is grounds for appeal along with the NTK wording and the signs wording. Your best bet will be the flaws in the PCN and NTK so do not blow it by implying who was driving. Just wait for the NTK for now. Good that you've started to refer to the POFA 2012 already.

AnthonyParkingPerson

I would appreciate anybody's' views on how well or not the sign complies with the IPC Code of Conduct. It seems to me that the Group A wording is missing altogether. The biggest text (apart form the name of PCM) says "PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR:" whereas it should state "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" as the biggest text.

Thoughts?

Dee140157

Thoughts are that you are heading exactly on the right direction to get this seen off.

So when you get the NTK send the short appeal from post 1 of newbie thread, but store up every little incorrect piece of information like this for use to see off at IAS.

You will see on one of the appeals they referred to the Capitalisation of the signs. Both the British Dyslexic Association and the government say this should be not used on signs as it makes it very difficult to read.

It certainly seems that our two angles of attack you are getting a handle on - signage and non compliant NTKs, although you have also raised non compliant NTD as well!

Coupon-mad

AnthonyParkingPerson wrote: »

I would appreciate anybody's' views on how well or not the sign complies with the IPC Code of Conduct. It seems to me that the Group A wording is missing altogether. The biggest text (apart form the name of PCM) says "PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR:" whereas it should state "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" as the biggest text.

Thoughts?

Well yes that's the sort of thing to include if Group A wording is missing. Have a look at NobleSX's thread about another IPC member:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5002855

His IAS appeal hasn't been decided yet but post #82 shows his wording which includes stuff about the NTK (wait for it - you need it to add to the non-compliant NTD point!!) and the flawed signage. That's how to win at IAS, written formally like a court defence with evidence attached. Always waiting for the NTK, getting past the initial appeal and getting a rejection, then appealing to the IAS as keeper, showing the signs and NTD/NTK (annotated copies attached at the time of IAS appeal) to be fatally flawed.