PCN from LDK Security Group Limited

WGXH

Hello all,

I would like to preface this by stating I have read the Newbies Guide. It has been very helpful, and my sincerest thanks to those who have invested the time and energy in aiding others lives.

I would simply like to verify if I have taken the information correctly; and explain my situation fully.

The PCN charge is for no valid ticket- the photographic evidence supplied does indeed not show my ticket. However, the driver has provided the ticket, and it is simply in shadow in the photographs provided- that is correct, there is a downside to a sunny day in England.

Inspection of the area shows there is a camera pointed at the ticket machine, and there should be cinematic evidence of the purchase of said ticket. As such, I am deeply upset and have been greatly stressed by this PCN notice where I feel any real research should have shown it to be genuine. Surely similar circumstances have occured where tickets have been blown from the dashboard by wind?

The conclusions I have reached from the newbie thread is:

A) To await the NTK due to the fact that the dispute is more robust from the Keeper of the vehicle?
Dispute with the PPC, and expect a refusal.
C) Dispute with POPLA


I eagerly await your wisdom, grand forum. Perhaps some wiser heads than I would go some way to reducing the stress induced panic attacks I am suffering at present.

Regards
WGXH

Redx

they have no conscience, they just want your money for any so called "rule breaking" or errors they can dream up , its only an invoice , a civil matter , so dont get upset

so yes wait for NTK

then send them the template letter with free certificate of posting and a COPY of the paid for ticket

then if they dont cancel, use the popla code for a proper popla appeal (which will have nothing to do with your paid for ticket)

dont painic, this forum is the right place to guide you and all the info you need is in that NEWBIES sticky thread

when its cancelled by popla , its over and done with

do not at any time mention who the driver is

Umkomaas

The conclusions I have reached from the newbie thread is:

A) To await the NTK due to the fact that the dispute is more robust from the Keeper of the vehicle? Yes.
Dispute with the PPC, and expect a refusal. Use initial appeal from the NEWBIES sticky 'as is'.
C) Dispute with POPLA Use examples of successful POPLA appeals from NEWBIES sticky, post #3 to draft your appeal. Let us see draft before submission to POPLA

You'll beat this lot following guidelines here.

Guys_Dad

I would add the matter of the photo having been taken specifically to obscure the ticket and allege that either the company or the warden on a ticket-issued bonus scheme is trying to defraud you, particularly if you can identify any part of the ticket on the photo.

WGXH

Thank you all for the advice.

I must confess, following the forum avidly over the past few days on the back of the recent issues in court- will this hold any bearing on what I should do? My concerns grow following the judging held of late.

Regards
WGXH

Umkomaas

WGXH wrote: »

Thank you all for the advice.

I must confess, following the forum avidly over the past few days on the back of the recent issues in court- will this hold any bearing on what I should do? My concerns grow following the judging held of late.

Regards
WGXH

Just stay with the plan and see how things transpire. The CoA result will have no impact on the level of the charge, so you're not at any disadvantage by going through the formal appeals' processes.

Then see what POPLA have to say.

In a worst case scenario - would LDK pursue a small claim, only time will tell, but as a relatively small fry, do they have the wherewithal to put a case together, and especially as it would cost them far more than they could ever hope to recover.

A different case with ParkingEye, who operate on such an industrial scale and are quite happy to rack up some losses at the SCC, 'pour encourager les autres'.

Coupon-mad

WGXH wrote: »

Thank you all for the advice.

I must confess, following the forum avidly over the past few days on the back of the recent issues in court- will this hold any bearing on what I should do? My concerns grow following the judging held of late.

Regards
WGXH

You may have missed the 'POPLA decisions' sticky thread then, top of the forum? A post only the other day there by Mav62 is about beating LDK at POPLA easily. Your PCN isn't from ParkingEye and there's no way LDK will be clued up enough to use the Beavis result to suddenly be able to tick all the boxes to beat the usual POPLA arguments we show people.

WGXH

Thank you all for the replies.

I did note the previous successful POPLA appeal, however, I did hold concerns if it was truly a game changer. Circumstances beteween charges always seem to be different, and naturally, never having returned even a library book late in my life, this is causing my a great deal of stress and alarm.

I am so very grateful for all of the advice- not just on this thread, but all over the forum. Still awaiting the NTK, however according to the PCN attachment there is roughly a fortnight left to go for it. I'll be back before too long with all of this, I'd imagine.

Regards
WGXH

WGXH

Well, gentlepeople, the NTK has arrived. I do note the amount required for payment on the NTK exceeds that of the initial PCN by a further £35. Is this usual? My other query is the PCN and the NTK have seperate links on them to submit an appeal. I would assume I would appeal to the links on the NTK as opposed to the PCN?

I am readying my appeal to send to the PPC. How does this appear? I felt as though adding a point on the fact they have already been paid by the driver may shame them into allowing the initial appeal, though hopes are low.

Any additional feedback or advice is more than welcomed. I owe you all a great debt.

Regards
WGXH

######################################################

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is extravagant and unconscionable when compared to local parking charges issued by the Council so cannot be justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is to deter.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was neither consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
f). Furthermore the driver has provided a copy of the ticket that has been paid for at your machine. Your wardens have not photographed the ticket that was on display upon the car windshield due to it being in shadow- indeed, your warden may well have ignored it on a tickets based incentives scheme. Due to this and tying onto issue A above, there has been no loss suffered by your company. Please find attached a scan of the ticket, which I am keeping myself.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. Following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, express consent must be obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent. You have failed to meet these requirements and you did not serve the driver with the terms by durable medium.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,
[REDACTED]

Redx

I wouldnt worry too much at this stage about any demands on the NTK

all you are doing is appealing an invoice, in order to get it cancelled or go to ADR

I like the above appeal so send it in, with the proof of purchase to make them look silly

chances are they wont even bother studying the appeal, will dismiss it as yet another template, will then use a template themselves as the dismissal and hopefully allow you a code for ADR

REMEMBER, ITS PROFIT AND GREED THAT DRIVES THEM, NOT COMMON SEMSE

WGXH

Cheers, Redx. A few more queries for the forum at large, if I may be indulged.

The payment on the NTK exceeds that of the initial PCN by £35. Is this meant to happen? Is that a grounds for a GPEOL at POPLA as they are seemingly making the charges up as they go along, contradicting themselves?

regards
WGXH