Help - PCN from Wing in Barnet

CoCo_N

No that's Brent.
I'm not permitted to post links yet but if you Google Barnet Borough, it's the first result

enfield_freddy

see post 2 (coupon mad) and follow that for a popla code , and repeat

CoCo_N

As stated in my previous post (#8), i've just sent off the first letter and will await their response before I can proceed to demanding a POPLA code. Thank you for you input

CoCo_N

Update: Received another ticket from Wing on Saturday :undecided
Reason being that I'd apparently failed to display the correct permit on my vehicle, which is a load of nonsense.
I went on their website to view pictures and the muppet had taken a picture of the fake PCN stuck right next to my very visible permit from the borough...
Anyway, today I contacted the borough to complain as I could see this becoming a regular occurrence and could do without the agro. They stated that since Wing took over the parking at our residence, I should purchase a permit directly from them - which looks very different to the one supplied by the borough.
Can't help but think that i'm fighting a losing battle now
Any advice appreciated. Should I be concerned?

CoCo_N

Hate to bump a thread unnecessarily but wondered if anyone could shed some light on my issue please, as i'm getting a little worried now.
I keep getting more PCNs, apparently my residential parking permit is not valid for my area because Wing have taken over.
Do i have to buy a permit from them now?
Still can't post links, but if you google "Barnet Wing Parking" and click on the second link, it states how some areas (mine included) now fall under their management.
Does it now mean that i still have to pay these fines?
I've racked up about £200 worth now.
Please any advice appreciated.

CoCo_N

I sent off the first letter challenging the fin on 4/04/15 and received this response yesterday (13/05/15):

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the above; we have noted your comments. We have reviewed the case in light of your appeal and we confirm that the vehicle concerned was parked in an area where parking is restricted and that the area is adequately signed to that effect.

We also confirm that the Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not clearly displaying a valid permit.

Your appeal is based on the following grounds;

• There is no evidence that we have any interest in the land.

• The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss

• The signs were not seen and the wording is ambiguous.

• The notice fails to comply with POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms regulations.

• There was no acceptance of any contract by yourself or the driver.

• There will be no admissions as to who was driving.

We dispute that we do not have sufficient interest in the land to issue contracts. We confirm that the contract to park is not actually offered by ourselves at all, it is offered by our clients, who do hold the necessary legal interest in the property. We are not offering the contract, we are merely acting as agents in the management of that contract.

Whether or not the amount charged is a genuine pre-estimate of loss is now not relevant. The issue of parking charges needing to be directly related to a genuine pre-estimate of loss has been negated by a recent decision in the Court of Appeal (Parking Eye Ltd and Barry Beavis). The Court decided that even though the level of the charge might be higher than the greatest direct loss which could be clearly proven, and indeed, that one of its main purposes was deterring motorists from parking contrary to the advertised restrictions, the charge could still be justifiable on public policy and commercial grounds, as the amount charged was neither unconscionable or extravagant. In circumstances where the amount being charged for this Parking Charge Notice is broadly in line with that which is charged locally for breach of parking restrictions on the nearby public highway, we do not

feel that our charge is unconscionable or extravagant and therefore we believe that it does not constitute an unenforceable penalty or that it is necessary for us to directly relate its value to any genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered.

Similarly, the Court of Appeal has also decided in the matter of any suggestion that the parking charge is unfair and therefore unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “Regulations”) as the Court ruled there was no want of good faith under the Regulations. The Court found that the rules of the car park were prominently displayed and contained no hidden traps. The Court agreed that the term did not cause a significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations and therefore it did not breach the Regulations. In circumstances such as those in this case where it is clear the parking restrictions were also prominently displayed and contained no hidden traps, we believe that the parking charge does not breach the Regulations as has been suggested.

We maintain that all relevant aspects of the Court of Appeal case are also relevant in this particular case and therefore we maintain that in light of the Court’s decision, we believe there can be no dispute that our charges are both legal and enforceable.

You have not explained in what way our parking charge notice fails to comply with POFA 2012 and in the absence of any specific information on that point, we cannot uphold an appeal on such a broad, vague and unsubstantiated statement.

We totally dispute your suggestion that no contract was formed. It has been a long established principle that instructions and information clearly displayed on warning signs are sufficient to constitute a contract, even in the absence of any monetary consideration or individual negotiation of terms. Your vehicle was parked in clear view of such a sign and therefore we are satisfied that a legally binding contract was entered into. Such an opinion is also clearly held by all relevant parties including our clients, the BPA, POPLA, the County Courts and the Court of Appeal.

The wording on the sign is in no way ambiguous as you claim; the sign clearly states that all vehicles must clearly display a valid permit for that estate and failure to comply with the restrictions may result in a PCN being issued.

We note your comments regarding costs, however we are satisfied that the parking charge notice was correctly and legally issued and we are not prepared to withdraw it as you suggest. For the avoidance of doubt we also reject any suggestion that by merely replying to your letter means we are accepting liability for your costs either at this stage or ongoing.

The reason for the issue of the Notice is supported by photographs taken at the time and these also support our actions. If you wish to view images of your vehicle at the time of enforcement, you can do so on our website https://www.wingparking.co.uk. Please select the link that says "Enforcement Images" and follow the instructions. You will need to enter both your registration number and the reference number of the Notice you were issued in order to view the images. However, please note that you DO NOT have to make payment or enter any personal data or credit card details to view the images

We have thoroughly reviewed this case and whilst we appreciate your comments and circumstances, we have acted in accordance with the instructions from our clients and the warning sign that was on display prior to the issue of the Notice. The Parking Charge

Notice was correctly and legally issued and therefore the Notice and the charges must stand.

We trust the above clarifies the situation. We will allow a further period of 14 days from the date of this letter, during which you may pay the discounted charge of £60.00 and thereafter the full charge of £100.00 will be due. Your account has already been amended to reflect the lower charge and full details of how to pay are shown on the rear of the PCN or on our website, https://www.wingparking.co.uk/make-payment

We hope that we have addressed the issues raised in your appeal, but if you are dissatisfied with the facts outlined in the reply, you have the option of taking your appeal further, to stage 2, by writing within 14 days to:

Wing Parking

Plaza 668

Hitchin Road

Luton

LU2 7XH

Alternatively you may email appeals@wingparking.co.uk. We recommend that any Stage 2 appeal is submitted in the same manner as the corresponding Stage 1 appeal as this will make it easier to match the correspondence.

The Stage 2 appeal must be made within 14 days of the date of this reply and must state why you are not satisfied with the reply and must include any relevant new evidence. Please remember to quote your vehicle registration and the PCN reference number.

Please note that enquiries about appeals will not be dealt with by telephone.

Yours sincerely,

Natalie Phillips Appeals Administrator

*******************
I suffer quite severely from anxiety and have been struggling quite badly over the last few weeks. After receiving this via email i'm struggling just to digest it all and keep myself together.

I'd really appreciate any guidance on how to proceed. Is this the point where i refuse their claim and demand a POPLA code to proceed to the next stage? Is it advisable to complain to Barnet? Also looks as though they have gone over the 35 day limit.

I'm sorry if it seems like I can't be bothered to do research, but believe me i have, i'm just struggling at the moment to keep myself together and have a clear mind.

enfield_freddy

Alternatively you may email [EMAIL="appeals@wingparking.co.uk"]appeals@wingparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]. We recommend that any Stage 2 appeal is submitted in the same manner as the corresponding Stage 1 appeal as this will make it easier to match the correspondence

yup exactly the same = deny

choose your words better!

not up on London laws , however you said the land was council owned , are londonia councils allowed to use private companies , or should this not be a council ticket / magistrates court job?


ok , failing that they will issue a POPLa code , how does that work ? because council land does not fall under the remit of private land.

nigelbb

I do hope that you appealed as the Registered Keeper & didn't name the driver for if these are council provided parking spaces then this is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA & thus no keeper liability applies.

CoCo_N

@enfield_freddy: This is where i'm confused as I initially though council property was private land. I do know that Barnet still issue tickets directly, so not sure how enforceable Wing's case is.

@nigelbb: I definitely appealed as Registered Keeper and mentioned nothing about the driver

Is there a time limit on how long i have to respond and proceed to stage 2? I've done a search but can't seem to find anything.

Thanks in advance.

enfield_freddy

council property , like the situation above is public land ,


simplified , does it have streetlights and drains , and public access , do dvla clamping vans trawl the street?


ring the local council and ask them if "x" is private land or not , do not mention this incident , just ask the correct department (NOT PARKING)


the council are being a bit naughty here ,






The Stage 2 appeal must be made within 14 days of the date of this reply and must state why you are not satisfied with the reply and must include any relevant new evidence. Please remember to quote your vehicle registration and the PCN reference number