norfolk parking enforcement

gregsayer

hi all posting in a new thread as per recommendation

The Keeper just got issued with a postal pcn from norfolk parking enforcement, due to parking outside a shop on dereham road in norwich whilst visiting kfc, less then 10metres away


i drove past and took this pic tonite

s12.photobucket.com/user/Greg_Sayer/media/npe_zpsio3yhym2.jpg.html

the pcn recieved had two pics of the car
and a url to a web page containing 5 more pic including a identifable pic of one of the occupants

according to the timestamps on the 1st and last pics the driver was parked for 14 mins

with the wording on the notice, have they made it watertight?

then there is the issue of the cctv used to take the pictures, its mounted on the otherside of the public road
working in IT, i know that under the data protection act, the use of cctv must be clearly marked with the reason and operator of the cctv camera, which there is not, and that the images recorded must only used for a legitimate use e.g prevention of crime, which it is not, also this data must be kept secure, which it is not as the pcn offers a url link which also includes the vehicle registration

once google trawls the site it will be visible to all

do we have grounds to appeal bearing in mind the specific wording on the sign?

Umkomaas

Clicky link (as promised):

http://s12.photobucket.com/user/Greg_Sayer/media/npe_zpsio3yhym2.jpg.html

Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky at the top of the forum threads' list, one page back from here, use the Forum Jump button to navigate there.

You do need to read and understand that sticky as you will have to do a bit of work to get rid of your problem. We will help and guide you, but won't be able to do it for you, so the more knowledge you gain about how to deal with this, the better you will handle it, and the more likely you will be successful.

NPE are a BPA operator and are easily beatable at POPLA, so do read carefully the NEWBIES FAQ sticky.

with the wording on the notice, have they made it watertight?

With that sign? :rotfl:

do we have grounds to appeal bearing in mind the specific wording on the sign?

Absolutely! Read the sticky, then if you still think this, tell us where the sticky suggests otherwise! And it just won't be on signage!

Grimble

Report him to BPA for use of cctv and ask what sanction points they are going to give him, maybe also trading standards.

ColliesCarer

Requests for help with PCN's from NPE at Dereham Road are frequently posted here - it seems it's a bit of a "honey trap".

Yours makes three on the main page alone

Use the Search the Forum function - search posts - using NPE Dereham to see posts from others dealing with the same set up.

gregsayer

just comparing the PCN to the template letter,
they seem to have basically copied and turn round the PoFA wording, in order to comply, can this still be challenged?

ColliesCarer

Yes it can still be challenged using the 1st appeal letter unchanged.

The PCN is rarely cancelled on receipt of the 1st appeal but that's expected because the aim is to get a POPLA code so you can submit a 2nd stage appeal to POPLA - which with forum help stands an excellent chance of winning.

It's at that stage that the specifics of how the NtK fails to comply (and they rarely comply fully) with POFA are included - you don't need to add anything to the 1st appeal.

gregsayer

thanks Colliescarer,

one other question, is it worth pursuing the CCTV line?

i emailed the BPA and they replied with the following
"If one of our Members is using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) to issue parking charge notices, they should advise this on one of the signs in the car park. They can either state that ANPR is in use or they can use the camera picture which is widely recognised."
is one little yellow icon on the sign sufficent to deam acceptable use of CCTV?

gregsayer

I've made amendments to the template, any feedback will be much appreciated.




Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No.

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

a). The sum is disproportionate, 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.
b) The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified.
c). There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land. I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability, there is no notice about the use of CCTV, the purpose and operator of such equipment, I note your registration with the information commissioner’s Office, shows your that your company has only registered under the data protection act, for the use of CCTV for crime prevention and / or staff monitoring, and as such you should not be using CCTV in such a way. For reference, this information is recorded at: ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch?reg=316758
e). I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.

Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA, the only independent ADR with a scrutiny panel and trained Assessors. The 'IAS' offered by IPC firms will not be used, for well-documented reasons.

''Drop hands'' offer
The charge is baseless but I realize that you may have nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs for responding to your junk mail dressed up to mimic a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15 so 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 and I will not pursue you for my costs.

Breach of CCRs
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered nor expressly agreed. This 'contract' is cancelled and any obligations now end.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

gregsayer

any advice before I email the above?


many Thanks

Grimble

It looks OK to me, I am not as experienced as some of the others, chances are it will be rejected and they will do a lot of spouting about Beavis which will be untruthful, you are only after a POPLA code.

Umkomaas

Looks good to go, no identification of the driver. Won't be upheld, so this is just a POPLA code fishing trip. Get that and you'll soon put an end to this.