PCN Warrington Hospital

Benji12

Hi, I am just after a little bit of advice to check I am on the right lines please? PCN received today for parking picked up on a camera and no evidence of sufficient parking payment. There was also a letter with it to say that there was an earlier occasion in the day but they overlook first violations. The PCN relates to the second incident on the same day. The reasons cited for installing the new parking management system are to ensure spaces are available. You're not going to park there for the fun of it unless you have an appt so quite how it ensures spaces are available I am unsure.
Grounds for appeal are: car park was actually full, so vehicle was parked on some wasteland at the site. Multiple other cars were parked there indicating it is used for parking but there are no signs displayed to say that a ticket is required, no machines in the vicinity and the area is basically a mud bath, so not easy to navigate with a small child in the rain, especially when said child has an appt for tests and time wasted looking for a space. Later in the day, other child had an appt, similar situation with no parking again. Driver was unaware of first violation as that has only arrived in the post with said Pcn or advice would of been adhered to. Nothing to say driver of first incident is driver at time of 2nd incident.
With regards to schedule 4, PCN states that I have been contacted as keeper and I should inform them if driver is different - I will not. All looks to be in line with schedule 4, except it doesn't state that if they don't know the name of the driver they have the right to claim from me as the keeper. Just the amount to be paid. Is this correct?
Also no signs seen in either dept visited re parking charges and no signs on part of site parked, although there are on other parts of the site. Change to parking management but no details issued with appt letter either. So letter will be copied to Pals and appeal letter will state this.
The company is Highview Parking.

Any advice gratefully received. Thanks

Fruitcake

Appealing on mitigation will lose. You need to read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES and appeal using the template letter contained therin.

PTH21

Like Benjii12 I have this morning received a letter and PCN from Highview Parking. The letter is a warning that on the 24th of February my vehicle remained in the car park in violation of the term & cons of parking. The PCN refers to a visit I made on the 26th and came with two photos of my vehicle being driven on the site not parked (both untimed/dated) The letter claims the vehicle was on the property on the 26th for 2hrs 43mins and, I quote, 'we do not have evidence that sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit'


If I did park at the location on the alleged date I would have parked, as I always do, on an area of the site which is untarmaced waste ground with no signage or lines etc. According to the official overview map of the hospital it is not marked/signed as an official car park (as in no P markings on the map)


Secondly, if they admit in the letter that, 'we do not have evidence that sufficient parking payment was made for this vehicle to cover the full duration of the visit' why should I pay? They claim I have committed an offence but in the same breath admit they have no evidence. Unless the law has changed I am innocent until proved guilty and as they cannot prove the offence and why should I incriminate myself?


Looking through old posts I see a lot of advice about ignoring these PCN as they are non-enforceable. I am reluctant to engage in correspondence with the company as I have no intention of incriminating myself or paying as they already admit they have no evidence. Does anybody have any advice for Benji and i presuming Benjiis letter has the same admission from Highview in it... thanks in advance.

DoaM

Looking through old posts is an exceedingly stupid thing to do ... the law changed (in England/Wales) in October 2012 that allows the registered keeper to be pursued for the alleged debt.