Excel PCN - no mention of POFA

Coupon-mad

Northern_b wrote: »

Hi,
Postal PCN received from Excel for not purchasing a ticket. Duration of stay was just 16 minutes, driver didn't notice signs saying ANPR...

I've complained to the retailer in question...Also, I've heard that the camera/signage installation in question has not received planning permission from the council - Is this something you think should be mentioned in the appeal or should I keep it up my sleeve for use should things go any further?
NB

Just quoting from your OP for the background to be shown next to your defence draft. Helps us to see what the issue is about - 16 minutes!

You could add:

- There is no evidence as to how long the vehicle parked for, if at all. ANPR pictures at/beyond the boundary do not evidence parking time and there has been no information supplied about any 'grace period' allowed. Nor is there evidence to show that the two cameras were synchronised as regards the clock/timers nor as regards where the two cameras were placed. As this is about an alleged 15 or 16 minutes based upon two moving traffic photos alone, such evidence is vital.

Northern_b

Thanks CM, is that not a little detailed for this stage and give BW/Excel a prompt to "dig up" such evidence? The point sounds useful though... Although It was mentioned in the letter rejecting my initial appeal that there is a 10 minute grace period after entering the car park in which a ticket must be purchased (Haven't been able to confirm whether this is/was present or prominent on the signage though.)

Coupon-mad

Yes, maybe a little detailed for now, I agree, do tweak it to suit as you see fit.

You can cut back all defence points to be shorter as long as they communicate that you are intending to defend on that basis. So you can mention 'grace period' and 'unsynchronised ANPR cameras' and 'no evidence of parking time, if any' in a more vague way. Then at the time before the hearing when you have to submit your witness statement and your skeleton argument and evidence, you can state a more detailed argument then.

Northern_b

Thanks CM, Any input on this? Could it be left as is or does it need altering in light of Excel being IPC members, or to remove reference to GPEOL?

5: As the POFA 2012 restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add the sum of 110.14 to the face value amount specified on the PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

Thanks,

NB.

Northern_b

...And this is how I've reworked the parking event time point: Not sure it sounds formal enough though. Thoughts please? Many thanks, NB.

The Claimant has not shown evidence of the duration for which the vehicle was parked, if at all. Moving traffic ANPR pictures at or beyond the boundary of the site cannot be relied upon to evidence parking time. It has not been shown that the clock/timers of those cameras were synchronised and considering any grace period it is questionable whether any parking event occurred at all.

Northern_b

Can anyone please advise the expected timescale between submitting a defence via MCOL and receiving a directions questionnaire?

many thanks,

NB

Coupon-mad

A few weeks...it's not set in stone. The whole process takes up to six months.