PCN NTK from NPE whilst waiting in car

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Up to you OP. However, if you take out the barrack room lawyers' language imo you sound more reasonable.

He seems to have used the recommended standard initial appeal from the NEWBIES sticky TD. It's worked well for many.

Guys_Dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

He seems to have used the recommended standard initial appeal from the NEWBIES sticky TD. It's worked well for many.

I think that times may be a changing. As I wrote on a previous thread - and can see myself repeating - the challenges to the wording of signs, NtKs and non-compliance with POFA need to be specific, otherwise the PPC simply has to say "The wording does follow POFA and the BPA recommendations - here they are".

POPLA is not going to check the wording against the BPA CoP or POFA and it will then be the job of the appellant after receiving the wad of paperwork from the PPC to then go out and find the non compliance, possibly with a very short window of time.

Far better to do the donkey work first.

Umkomaas

But that step will come at the POPLA stage; the initial appeal is much more about extracting a POPLA code - and signalling that the OP is likely to be getting some forum help and is not necessarily low-hanging fruit.

starkers8

A friend has received a letter for also parking outside the shop next to the pet shop and a time/date stamped photograph from a camera has been sent with the car clearly parked in front of the sign. The shops were shut and they had gone into KFC, i have written up the standard template with the following amendment as the shops were closed on a Sunday afternoon

(a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. In addition the charge is not commercially justified because at the time of the alleged event, the shop (in front of which you claim the vehicle was parked) was closed therefore there can have been no loss to either yourselves or the landowner. I therefore contend it is a disguised penalty and is unenforceable.

They wish to know if it would be of any benefit to provide a receipt from kfc (if they can find one) to show they were using the shops, or would this be admitting liability? I have read the newbie thread but am not sure what to do.

bazster

Staring your own thread instead of hijacking this one would be a good start.

totallytech

Hi All,

So I've had my appeal from NPE rejected (shocking!).

They've emailed this:

Thank you for your internet copied template letter of appeal against the above parking charge notice

issued to you on 24th April 2015 at 19.07pm for reason ‘Unauthorised Parking’ at ’47-49 Dereham

Road, Norwich’.

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for

the following reasons:

1- The above location is private property and there are advertised terms and conditions which the driver is expected to abide by in order to obtain permission to park.
2- The signage clearly states that parking is not permitted for KFC or when the business is
closed.

3- The spaces at this location are reserved when the business is closed for vehicles that have been authorised and added to our exempt list. As your vehicle is not on that list it was correctly issued a parking charge.

4- Following the judgement of the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye v Beavis on 23rd April 2015, we can confirm that the parking charge is considered to be a deterrent to parking in a restricted area and the charge is not extravagant or unconscionable.
5- The parking charge made is not a penalty and the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss is not relevant
6- Norfolk Parking Enforcement have a contract with the landowner which gives us full responsibility to issue parking charges to vehicles that have parked outside of the advertised terms and conditions and to pursue payment in our name through court if necessary.

So, I'll be heading over to the parking area shortly with my tape measure to check the size of the fonts match the BPA CoP - As with all the NPE signage I'm aware the P is missing the BPA logo however there will be plenty of other problems with the signage to go for too!

enfield_freddy

how nice of this company to send you a fake NTK , and break there KODOE agreement with the DVLA


from the BPAs page Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd


http://www.britishparking.co.uk/approved-operators


no = ANPR


yes = debt recover


yes = self ticket


yes = ticket




I think a complaint to the DVLA might be in order.


why was this company allowed to use an ANPR system , whilst not being registered to do so with the BPA


NTK issued in less than 28 days ,

totallytech

There was no windscreen ticket issued on this vehicle, but the NtK was issued after 4 days - not sure if that makes a difference?

From what I've read the KADOE contract is seperate from the BPA so I'm not sure I should mention the ANPR system (unless it has to be registered with the BPA to be used via the DVLA?)

I'll have a dig around and see if I can find a DVLA complaint to fire off

enfield_freddy

if the ticket was issued by ANPR , it has to be received in 14 days or less , if there is a ticket on the car , it should arrive between days 29(?) and 56 (?) (approx.)


because you received no ticket on the car , to be lawful it must come in 14 days or less, that is what happened




however NPE have not been accredited with the BPA the right to issue tickets by using ANPR , and must wait until day whatever to apply for your details.


therefore they have not adhered to the BPA code of practice , and have broken there agreement (kodoe) with the DVLA , stating that they will abide to there ATAs code of practice.


it seems like they might be in trouble with both the BPA and the DVLA


regulars . please don,t pull me on stating the exact days , the explanation is good enough for the OP




edit:


just checked some of my postings on pepipoo , back in February this year NPE WERE allowed ANPR access , I actually did a similar printout , so either the BPA page is incorrect or it has been withdrawn


an email from a spare gmail account to the BPA , should reveal the truth , will report back

Guys_Dad

You could check with the council whether or not (a) the space is owned by the business or the council and (b) whether or not Norfolk Household are renting/leasing the land or are actually the landowner.

The point being that regardless of their contract with the PPC, if they don't own the land, any contract with a PPC is worthless unless the actual landowner has given Norfolk Household authority to engage a PPC.

Very important point if appealing to POPLA. You want to see the contract between Norfolk House and the actual landowner (if the two are not one in the same) and, of course, after checking with council who owns that bit of pavement.