J-D--P-a-r-k-i-n-g--C-o-n-s-u-l-t-a-n-t-s--PCN

Ignatius1

On closer inspection I initially thought that it didn't fully comply with paragraph 7.1 of Update 5, October 2014 of the CoP:


"...In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice...", but unfortunately clause 3.3 of the terms and conditions of their site agreement states:


"Abide by the British Parking Associations code of practice..."


I know that the landowner ground for appeal is usually very strong, but they do seem to have complied with Section 7 of the Code.


So far I think I can only rebut their non-compliance of PoFA 2012 with regards to their Notice to Keeper, the confusion between who the actual "contract" is with (JD or PCS/DRP), and their disregard of the fact that the Beavis case is still on-going and is to be heard by the Supreme Court, so as yet there is no final decision.


I'll also reiterate the fact that the telephone number printed on their signage is a 0845 number and is breaching 18.7 of the CoP.


I have three or four days left to submit my comments/rebuttal.

Ian011

While the use of a premium 0845 number is a breach of the industry Code of Practice, failure to declare the Service Charge for the 0845 number is also a breach of the Ofcom regulations that came into force on 1 July 2015.

Umkomaas

Ian011 wrote: »

While the use of a premium 0845 number is a breach of the industry Code of Practice, failure to declare the Service Charge for the 0845 number is also a breach of the Ofcom regulations that came into force on 1 July 2015.

0845 numbers are 'local' calls, not premium calls.

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

0845 numbers are 'local' calls, not premium calls.

They definitely are 'premium' rate in that they are outside inclusive minutes on mobile phone contracts & you now get ripped off by your network operator for an 'access charge' (BT 9.58p/min, Three 25p/min, EE 44p/min etc) plus up to 7p/min charged by the company you are calling.

Ian011

Umkomaas wrote: »

0845 numbers are 'local' calls, not premium calls.

0845 numbers haven't been 'local rate' since 2004. Both Ofcom and ASA issued a note about this in 2005.

Additionally, a distinct 'local rate' (a lower charge for a local call) for calls to 01 and 02 numbers hasn't existed since 2004. This was when the price distinction based on distance was scrapped for calls to 01 and 02 numbers and callers moved onto inclusive call plans for those calls. Calls to 03 numbers were added in 2007.

Ofcom's changes effective 1 July 2015 confirm that all 084, 087 and 09 numbers are premium rate. The premium is the Service Charge paid to the benefit of the called party and their telecoms provider. In many cases it's equivalent to the Enhanced Termination Rate that applied to these calls before 1 July 2015.

Ofcom confirmed, several years ago, that the only range of non-geographic numbers to have price parity with the cost of calling geographic numbers starting 01 and 02 is the range of numbers starting 03.



See also
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5292529

Umkomaas

Nigel & Ian - thanks for updating me on this. As we've got all inclusive calls plan on our landline at home I've never needed to keep up to speed on the considerable changes providers have brought in, as outlined by Ian.

Cheers guys.

Ignatius1

Indeed - the fact that there's an access charge when dialling a 0845 number renders their signage partially non-compliant with the CoP. It's also breaching fairly recent Ofcom regulation changes, and is possibly breaching the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 - Part 4 Paragraph 41: "a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate.".


I complained a few weeks ago or so (2 October) to the BPA about their non-compliant NtK, the signage, the fact that their images taken seem to have been digitally altered (all date/time stamps are identical), but I'm yet to receive any sort of proper response following any investigations they claim to be carrying out. I've only had one or two sort of acknowledgement emails so far. I may prod them a little more early next week. I'll keep you all posted with those developments.


On another note about the images - they took four. The only one from the front (allegedly not displaying a valid permit) doesn't include the VRM of the carriage. The colour of the vehicle is consistent, but I think I could argue that the single image from the front of the vehicle displaying only the windscreen/dashboard is insufficient evidence and could be any other blue vehicle. What do you think?

Ignatius1

Indeed - the fact that there's an access charge when dialling a 0845 number renders their signage partially non-compliant with the CoP. It's also breaching fairly recent Ofcom regulation changes, and is possibly breaching the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 - Part 4 Paragraph 41: "a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate.".


I complained a few weeks ago or so (2 October) to the BPA about their non-compliant NtK, the signage, the fact that their images taken seem to have been digitally altered (all date/time stamps are identical), but I'm yet to receive any sort of proper response following any investigations they claim to be carrying out. I've only had one or two sort of acknowledgement emails so far. I may prod them a little more early next week. I'll keep you all posted with those developments.


On another note about the images - they took four. The only one from the front (allegedly not displaying a valid permit) doesn't include the VRM of the carriage. The colour of the vehicle is consistent, but I think I could argue that the single image from the front of the vehicle displaying only the windscreen/dashboard is insufficient evidence and could be any other blue vehicle. What do you think?

Coupon-mad

non-compliant NtK, the signage, the fact that their images taken seem to have been digitally altered (all date/time stamps are identical),

These are some of your main points for rebuttal. PCS NTKs are far from compliant with the POFA and in the evidence pack, PCS are saying you are being pursued under the POFA. So write out a blow-by-blow comparison with Schedule 4 paragraph 8 (if there was a windscreen PCN first) or paragraph 9 (if the NTK was the PCN).

I have little knowledge of the POFA 2012 Act.

You soon will! It's easy, Google 'POFA Schedule 4' then copy either para 8 or 9 (as applicable) then put your comments in red next to each bullet point. e.g. it doesn't have a 'date sent' or 'date given' (it really doesn't), and no period of parking and it doesn't say to pass the notice to the driver, I saw all those straight away but there will be more.

To clarify the subject of the NTK not being compliant with POFA 2012, is one reason for its non-compliance the fact that it doesn't state what the "full charge" is [if the £60.00 isn't paid within 14 days]?

Not one I've ever used. There are LOADS of omissions in wording in that NTK. You'll see when you do the comparison, word for word.

Did it arrive in time (not, was it sent in time, did it ARRIVE in time)? Was there a windscreen PCN?

And as for the contract, how can it be evidence that in Summer 2015 a charge can be levied, when the contract is dated 18 months ago and is not siged by the landowner, nor are they even named? It's not just a matter of saying 'is it compliant with the BPA CoP?'.

Old POPLA used to say this, so quote this to new POPLA (sadly I can't give this name & case number):

''Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The statement from the managing agent produced by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted because it does not name the landowner, from which the authority must flow if it is to be valid.

Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor''

Ignatius1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You soon will! It's easy, Google 'POFA Schedule 4' then copy either para 8 or 9 (as applicable) then put your comments in red next to each bullet point. e.g. it doesn't have a 'date sent' or 'date given' (it really doesn't), and no period of parking and it doesn't say to pass the notice to the driver, I saw all those straight away but there will be more.

It really doesn't have a 'date sent' or 'date given', only 'Parking Charge Date' & 'Date of this Notice'.

I believe it does say to pass the notice to the driver, though.

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As we do not hold a record of the driver's name and address we are writing to you as the keeper of the vehicle. As such we now invite you or the driver (if different) to make payment of the parking charge shown, or if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident to notify us in writing, acting on behalf of JD Parking Consultants Ltd, of the name and current serviceable address of the driver so that we can contact them for payment. Please also pass this notice to him/her without delay. If we do not receive details of the driver within 28 days of this notice then if the charge is still outstanding we will have the right to recover payment from the keeper.”[/FONT]

Did it arrive in time (not, was it sent in time, did it ARRIVE in time)? Was there a windscreen PCN?

I believe the NTK did arrive in time in accordance with regulations. I removed the dates from the NTK, but here they are. "Parking Charge Date" was 18/08/2015 and "Date of this Notice" was 21/08/2015. It was received in the post by 24/08/2015. No, there was no windscreen PCN.

And as for the contract, how can it be evidence that in Summer 2015 a charge can be levied, when the contract is dated 18 months ago and is not siged by the landowner, nor are they even named? It's not just a matter of saying 'is it compliant with the BPA CoP?'.

The landowner isn't named, but their 'supposed' appointed agent might be (Adair Paxton). However, Adair Paxton are the people whom the concierge company have contract(s) with, and it's probably very likely that Adair Paxton haven't been appointed by the landowner.

Does the landowner have to be named?

Old POPLA used to say this, so quote this to new POPLA (sadly I can't give this name & case number):

''Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The statement from the managing agent produced by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted because it does not name the landowner, from which the authority must flow if it is to be valid.

Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor''

I will add another section about the landowner contract to the rebuttal and include this, but new POPLA might not care about previous adjudications by old POPLA.

Here's what I've written so far. I believe the 7 day deadline is today.