Athens Security Services A.S. Parking

grogley

Back in July had a PCN from above company stuck to my windscreen in a beach car park (owned I believe by a holiday park). Had a Notice to Keeper letter in late September. Have ignored both, but on reading this forum realise it would be best to respond. Am thinking of using the std. form indicted in Newbies for company's belonging to the IPC. Is this a good idea at this late stage? The Notice to Keeper letter is rather confusing as it gives the date of parking, then gives the Period of Parking as under 3 minutes. It states " This charge relates to the period that immediately preceded the issue of that notice, the charge having been incurred for the reason stated above and liability for the same having been bought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site." My parking ticket expired and the PCN was issued 11 minutes later. As a point of interest I saw the parking official driving away, and tried to find him, without success as my watch (I have no proof) showed I still had a couple of minutes remaining!
Would be grateful on any advice as to how to proceed. Can provide more details, but don't want to muddy the waters anymore. Thanks

Fruitcake

Delete the times from your original post. Parking scammers read these sites and use very precise and unique times to identify people.

DO IT NOW.

grogley

Thanks Fruitcake have edited info. but still not sure if I should send standard letter as suggested under the Newbies!!--- thread that starts Dear {name of IPC member, only IPC members for this version!!!}

Re PCN number:

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision: etc etc.


My concern was that they had given me ( Notice to Keeper) 28 days to pay, this ended a few days ago. I was also trying to highlight that the NTK specified a period of parking of less than 3 minutes, although the allegedly correct info was given on the original PCN.
So, do I just sit tight and wait for court action or send off the standard letter?

Fruitcake

Send the IPC template letter, although it sounds like you may be outside the IPC appeal window. The idea is to stop this going to court by asking embarrassing questions and showing that you are being reasonable whilst the parking company is not.

I believe the details on the PCN must be mirrored by that on the NTK. You can upload redacted pics of both docs to a web hosting site such as tinypic or photobucket (not in your real name nor with any other pics with personal info on them) then post the URL here. Change http to hxxp as you cannot post live links. Someone here will then change them back to a live link and the experts can cast an eye over them.

A timeline would also be useful
Date of alleged event/NTD on windscreen
Date of NTK issued.
Date of NTK received.

grogley

Here are images of PCN & NTK:
hxxp://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p409/grogley/IMG_0389b.jpg
hxxp://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p409/grogley/IMG_0388b_1.jpg
In terms of a timeline, PCN issued 19th July, made aware of NTK 28th Sept (it was issued24th Aug. but I was away so only recently got it).

Coupon-mad

http://s346.photobucket.com/user/grogley/media/IMG_0389b.jpg.html

http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p409/grogley/IMG_0388b_1.jpg

PCN issued 19th July, made aware of NTK 28th Sept

The NTK was served too late then, to hold the registered keeper liable. Send the 'IPC' template letter from the NEWBIES thread, which is better than ignoring it, then you will have to hope they do not take it to small claims within SIX YEARS and make sure you tell them any new address of you move house, to avoid being 'credit clamped' at an old address with a late CCJ as per other threads (see below).

Greedy, a scam which should not be lawful, do you agree?

So, there is ONE major next step:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524754

DO THAT - PLEASE JOIN THIS CAMPAIGN NOW, THIS MONTH WHILE THE GOVERNMENT IS LISTENING!

Let your MP and Mrs May hear about how this awful threat is affecting you and what you think about the rotten greedy 'parking industry'! Write your own or use the template provided by the BMPA. as shown in that thread, I encourage snail mail letters landing with a thud on desks.

grogley

What confuses me about this whole affair is that there is no audit trail between the ticket produced by the pay and display machine, the PCN and the NTK. A ticket was purchased, which has a date and departure time and what appears to be a unique number on it. The on vehicle PCN, has no reference to the ticket ( no departure time,or ref. to unique number), but does have a ref. no., Observed date/time and Date/Time of issue. The NTK has a link to the ref. no. on the PCN, Date of Parking Event and Period of Parking (which in this case is shown as the difference between the Observed date/time and Date/Time of issue and is less than 3 minutes). How do they validate this, is it by photo evidence of a ticket in the vehicle, as otherwise the paper evidence doesn't tie the events together? If the PCN was missing, without seeing photo evidence (and I suspect date/time stamps can be easily modified) , the driver would have no means of knowing of what he was accused. How are the machines synced, if at all? Unless A S Parking have the car parks they prey on all served by the same model of pay and display machines, and they keep batteries and software of the handhelds up to date, and they are incapable of being altered/hacked then without a clear audit proving this I can see potential for the issue of unenforceable PCN's.
Or am I missing something?

pappa_golf

grogley wrote: »

What confuses me about this whole affair is that there is no audit trail between the ticket produced by the pay and display machine, the PCN and the NTK. A ticket was purchased, which has a date and departure time and what appears to be a unique number on it. The on vehicle PCN, has no reference to the ticket ( no departure time,or ref. to unique number), but does have a ref. no., Observed date/time and Date/Time of issue. The NTK has a link to the ref. no. on the PCN, Date of Parking Event and Period of Parking (which in this case is shown as the difference between the Observed date/time and Date/Time of issue and is less than 3 minutes). How do they validate this, is it by photo evidence of a ticket in the vehicle, as otherwise the paper evidence doesn't tie the events together? If the PCN was missing, without seeing photo evidence (and I suspect date/time stamps can be easily modified) , the driver would have no means of knowing of what he was accused. How are the machines synced, if at all? Unless A S Parking have the car parks they prey on all served by the same model of pay and display machines, and they keep batteries and software of the handhelds up to date, and they are incapable of being altered/hacked then without a clear audit proving this I can see potential for the issue of unenforceable PCN's.
Or am I missing something?

no ...................

Coupon-mad

grogley wrote: »

How are the machines synced, if at all? Unless A S Parking have the car parks they prey on all served by the same model of pay and display machines, and they keep batteries and software of the handhelds up to date, and they are incapable of being altered/hacked then without a clear audit proving this I can see potential for the issue of unenforceable PCN's.

Pretty sure they are not likely to be synched because there are no rules (no law) to make it so. A PPC would think 'what's in it for me' to synch the employee's watch with the handheld and with the machine in each car park as he/she arrives and/or with the ANPR.

There is nothing 'in it' for them to synch anything - and it's better for them to allow some minutes difference - which no driver can later disprove! The entire rotten industry has an agenda of greed and money (not shown to be 'parking management' by anyone's description, no matter how many times they use soundbites like 'increasing footfall' in ridiculous reports to Councils and pitches to hapless landowners who have been TOLD they have a problem that needs fixing).

In Council car parks, the CEO on arrival is required to ensure his handheld machine is in synch with the time on the P&D machine(s) which must all show the same time (of course). Records are kept of this and can be requested as part of a PCN challenge if it's a Council.

In private car parks it is a licence to print money, no rules. As the BPA always tell us 'we are not a regulator' and as the DVLA always tell us 'refer any issues to the BPA' (and the IPC generally - it seems - make it difficult to complain, by making you register first and tell them who you are/shoe size, etc., then not responding, in cases we've seen). So there are no rules.

So complaints come full circle and if a person gets dragged to small claims, the Judge has no clue about the finer points of the BPA CoP or the POFA (nor even if the claimant is the right entity) and will merely look for 'a contract' shown on signage, in many cases.

That's why the 'profession' needs stopping by the Government, as the Supreme Court didn't help by swallowing the (what appeared to be) very minimal 'justification for a penalty' offered by ParkingEye.

grogley

So are you saying that arguing that the ticket was still valid at the time the PCN was issued would not be acceptable in court. That there would not be a need for the PPC to prove that the time shown was indeed the real time and that it's no use suggesting that the PCN came about from the use of faulty equipment or malpractice of the operator?

Coupon-mad

grogley wrote: »

So are you saying that arguing that the ticket was still valid at the time the PCN was issued would not be acceptable in court.

Nope - nothing to do with what a REAL Judge might think - simply that the IAS will not accept it as it's considered a kangaroo court:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html

That there would not be a need for the PPC to prove that the time shown was indeed the real time and that it's no use suggesting that the PCN came about from the use of faulty equipment or malpractice of the operator?

Nope, not saying that at all - in court you would get a fair hearing and yes, all that you say would be relevant. Just trying to make sure you know what you are dealing with here and not to try IAS which tips the balance against you when you lose. That then buoys the PPC, who would use a victory at IAS as evidence in court. Which a Judge might believe had some weight.