Hire company paid private PCN against their own terms and conditions (ARVAL again!)

Umkomaas

Someone gets an unfair PCN and ends up with an unfair CCJ, all from an illegal activity.

And CEL are no strangers to the issuing of spurious court claims, in volume.

DJBenson

I've sent a copy of everything I've gathered on this case to the Daily Mail and four local newspapers.

Dear Sir / Madam

I have a story you may be interested in.

My wife recently parked at a private car park in Whalley (Clitheroe, Lancashire) and went to pay for parking. Being heavily pregnant, and having a toddler in tow, she mistakenly entered her own registration number in the machine rather than my registration number - the car she was driving. A month later a parking charge notice arrived for 60 pounds for parking without paying the relevant fee. A relatively simple mistake to make yet no leeway from the operator of the car park, who it turns out are less than perfect themselves.

I am in the process of contesting the charge and in the process of doing that, I have uncovered potentially illegal activity on behalf of the private parking company (Civil Enforcements LTD of Liverpool). The operation at the car park is based around signage which is meant to form a contract with the customer on entering the car park. The enforcement of the car park is managed by way of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) using pole-mounted cameras that take a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park and check how long they were there and whether they paid or not.

The illegal activity comes about because the installation of the ANPR equipment when pole mounted (as per this car park) and the signs that display the warnings and payment details are both subject to planning regulations. The camera/pole require planning permission and the signs require advertising consent - neither of which have (according to the email below from the local planning enforcement officer) have been granted. The lack of advertising consent is illegal.

I therefor put to you that this car park (and potentially hundreds if not thousands more around the country) are issuing parking charge notices to customers based on contractual information that cannot be enforced as the means to form the contract and enforce compliance are operating without consent.

There is an active movement in this country to take on the private parking companies as they work in unregulated conditions with unscrupulous practices and I hope that you will be interested in covering my story in a bid to raise awareness of these underhanded practices and make the system fairer for the consumer.

I am happy to provide any additional information in order to enable you to take this story further.

With regards,

<REMOVED>

DJBenson

I'm going to start writing my LBA for ARVAL but am I best waiting for the outcome of the BVRLA and FOS investigations first? I'd also need to let them take the money by Direct Debit I presume or else I wouldn't have a claim against them (a financial one anyway).

bod1467

I would say that they should be putting any claim on hold pending resolution of your complaint. But yes, your LBA would be presumptious if you hadn't yet incurred any actual financial loss in relation to this event.

DJBenson

Mmmm...

/snip
I should draw your attention to the fact that enforcement is a discretionary process, taking into account the circumstances of the case. Please find a link to the council’s enforcement plan for your information.

https://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/4662/agenda_item_8_-_enforcement_plan
/snip

Accompanied by a 28 page PDF.

So they might be breaking the law but it depends upon whether the councils can be bothered doing anything about it.

Bit of a wait for a response now whilst the enforcement team contact the land owner and the operator for response.

Umkomaas

DJBenson wrote: »

Mmmm...



Accompanied by a 28 page PDF.

So they might be breaking the law but it depends upon whether the councils can be bothered doing anything about it.

Bit of a wait for a response now whilst the enforcement team contact the land owner and the operator for response.

Read hexaflexagon's mammoth thread on Liverpool John Lennon Airport over on pepipoo to see how a local council will find any excuse under the sun to avoid confronting this.

Dig a dropped kerb in front of your house and see how quickly they move then!

trisontana

This news article may be of interest:-

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2016/09/14/acfo-to-publish-memorandum-of-understanding-with-private-parking-industry

Fleet representative body ACFO is to publish a memorandum of understanding document looking at best practice around parking charges on private land.
The document, produced with trade body the British Parking Association and one of the UK’s major enforcement companies, Parking Eye, will essentially comprise a series of “top tips” advising fleet managers and drivers on how to avoid charges being imposed; the process for transferring charges to drivers and the system relating to appeals against a parking charge.

The only (big) fly in the ointment is the involvement of Parking Eye.

Coupon-mad

Interesting article, trisontana. They are so deluded though, with what they have been LED UP THE GARDEN PATH TO 'BELIEVE':

However, in the interim ACFO believes the memorandum of understanding will assist members in overcoming concerns and removing confusion and anxiety around parking charges on private land.

If you wanted to protect your hen coop from the threatening fox, why would you ask that fox and its mates for advice?!

DJBenson

Well ARVAL have backed down in so much as they've agreed to settle their invoice 'as a gesture of good will' but they have failed to acknowledge any of the points I put to them and the letter still seems to imply that their terms and conditions overrule legislation.

Coupon-mad

I would ask what leads them to conclude ''in the overwhelming majority of cases, drivers have no valid grounds to appeal the charge''?!

That is completely false - almost any PCN, Council or private - can be appealed and won. Private ones are almost always unfair and the Government is looking to regulate the sector again, in view of the way they operate on the edge of the law and issue spurious charges.

And why does he talk about 'passing on responsibility for fines and penalties'? This wasn't one and they had NO 'responsibility'. It was never theirs to pay or decide about at all.

And on what basis does he have evidence to say the following because NO PCNs can be appealed once paid (whether they be Council penalties, or private fake ones):

''your assertion that Arval's action in settling the PCN automatically removed your right of appeal is not correct. Payment of a PCN does not preclude the recipient from challenging the charges through due process''.

Oh yes it does.

Make sure they know NEVER to pay a PCN 'on your behalf' again. You could even report them to the BVRLA for the misleading reply which is wrong on so many counts and made the assumption that the PCN was Arval's liability in the first place, which it was not due to it being a non-POFA (driver liability only) one.

Have the BVRLA missed the fact that many private PCNs are not 'keeper liability' ones and ONLY the business of the driver, not the lease firm?