"Park Watch" are NOT Park watch LTD.

DJMC

@DollyDee

Thanks, BUT this was NOT a windscreen ticket.
It was a postal ticket only.
In view of this I believe I should ignore your post?
Thanks for trying to help though - the newbies FAQ page is very long and confusing.

DollyDee_2

That's strange, in your first post you said the reason for issue was for parking over a line so I assumed windscreen ticket not ANPR.

Sounds like Park Watch "unlimited" use the hybrid technique taking a photo with a camera or phone. Was the ticket received within 14 days counting the incident date as Day 0?

Don't ignore all of my post, it is the correct template appeal and if THE DRIVER has got receipts/redacted bank statement etc then copies could be attached. Some PPCs cancel tickets if over £30 (or whatever) has been spent.

Also, follow the advice to complain to retailer/land owner with copies of receipts.

Never reveal who was driving.

Oh, and don't phone the PPC or any debt collectors.

Fruitcake

DJMC wrote: »

@DollyDee

Thanks, BUT this was NOT a windscreen ticket.
It was a postal ticket only.
In view of this I believe I should ignore your post?
Thanks for trying to help though - the newbies FAQ page is very long and confusing.

If there was no windscreen ticket then the PCN must arrive through the post no later than day 14, the date of the alleged event being day zero.

Your son should appeal as keeper using the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES thread no matter what without missing the appeal deadline which is normally 28 days.
If the NTK did not arrive by day 14 then the keeper can add that liability can not be transferred to the keeper as the requirements of the POFA 2012 have not been met.

The appropriate time to appeal a postal PCN is anytime within the appeal deadline.

DollyDee_2

This is the Newbies Advice to follow for a postal PCN:

Postal PCN ? (i.e. with no mention of any windscreen ticket at all, whether seen or not):

A postal PCN or NTK might be headed up 'Notice to Keeper' or 'Reminder' or 'Charge Notice' or it may even be a random letter from a debt collector - it is still your Notice to Keeper, in effect, if it is the first letter to arrive.


Compare your postal PCN to paragraph 8 or 9 of POFA 2012 (linked below). Look for omissions in wording or late arrival of the NTK and include those points in your appeal because as the registered keeper you can argue 'no keeper liability' if the PPC have not complied. However that does not make the ticket 'illegal' it just demotes it to one which is issued under 'old rules and is only potentially aimed at an - unidentified of course! - driver.

Keep the envelope as evidence if it is franked with a date which proves the PCN was posted too late to reach you within 14 days.

An appeal can be submitted by the keeper after a postal NTK or after a windscreen PCN.


I've deleted the part about double-dipping as it's not applicable.

Coupon-mad

DJMC wrote: »

I just phoned my household legal protection for advice. Their solicitor advised that it's common for parking management companies to pass a parking debt on to another company, in this case Defence Systems Ltd to Park Watch Ltd, and therefore the name discrepancy is not a defence in itself.

So, after all, the fine must be paid. Ho hum...

I take it the part I've put in bold is sarcasm? Hope so, because we all chuckled when we read that opinion.

You do know the advice was wrong? Of course they can't share data between companies. It is common for them to pass data to a debt collector, yes, that's allowed. But not to another company. You were right at first and Esme at the BPA was making excuses for their beloved fee-paying member, as appears to be usual for the BPA these days:

I phoned BPA in response to this email and Esme there explained that Park Watch are part of Defence Systems Limited which is a member. That's incorrect. Park Watch Limited cannot be "a part" of another limited company. If Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch had issued the ticket all well and good, but they didn't.

Did the first letter arrive by day 14?

pappa_golf

both parkwatch and defence systems are registered with the ICO

parkwatch , as a NON ata can share with defence systems , however defence systems (in an ATA) cannot pass data to a non ATA company

if it can be proved that parkwatch gave info to defence systems , who then used ATA access THEN handed back to parkwatch , there would be a problem

at the moment all follow up paperwork seems to be coming from defence systems , and parkwatch are simply acting as an agent or parking wardens

DJMC

pappa_golf wrote: »

both parkwatch and defence systems are registered with the ICO

parkwatch , as a NON ata can share with defence systems , however defence systems (in an ATA) cannot pass data to a non ATA company

if it can be proved that parkwatch gave info to defence systems , who then used ATA access THEN handed back to parkwatch , there would be a problem

at the moment all follow up paperwork seems to be coming from defence systems , and parkwatch are simply acting as an agent or parking wardens

No paperwork whatsoever has been received from Defence Systems Ltd.

pappa_golf

and the company number on the letters you have recieved?

DJMC

pappa_golf wrote: »

and the company number on the letters you have recieved?

08798058 = Park Watch Ltd

DJMC

If it makes any difference to the "offence", the cars either side of my son's car were each parked over the white outer lines to the two spaces he parked in the centre of, so that it would have been impossible for him to park in one of these spaces without impeding one of those cars.

He may have been able to park elsewhere, but these spaces are the ones he uses every day. Well, one of them anyway.