Parking Charge Notice from PCM at Hayes & Harlington Station

sheldrickB

Hi everyone,

Hoping to get some advice from you guys regarding a parking charge notice the driver received from PCM in September last year from the road behind Hayes and Harlington station.

the driver received letters from PCM, Trace Debt Recovery and Gladstones Solicitors because the driver decided to ignore the parking charge notice - I've never acknowledged any of the letters or made an appeal.

The driver was embarking to the left so that my friend could get out of the car to get the train, all bays were full so the driver felt the most appropriate thing to do was to drive to the left of the road so users can get round the driver if they wish - even though the car was still for literally 5 seconds.

The photos of my car appear to have been taken from the man who owns PCM on his phone, the letter states the photo was taken at 14:11 but there are no time stamps on the photos in which he is using as evidence - therefore no evidence that my car was there for long enough for the driver to agree to enter the contract of the parking charge, or that the driver was there for longer than a reasonable grace period that the BPA code of conduct (13.2) states should be given to anyone who is deciding if they should stay or go.

The original letter said the reason for the notice was because the driver:
- parked outside of a marked bay (the driver wasn’t parking)
- on a restricted roadway (was not inside the marked yellow grid)
- causing obstruction or inconvenience (there was no other cars or members of the public around for the driver to obstruct, the driver was on the far left of the road which means cars could have easily drove past the driver)

The drop off point is currently closed due to the construction work for the cross rail therefore there is no drop off area available to the public, and the driver is from Essex visiting the area so the driver did not know about this road having the parking charges, even still trading standards said that PCM have agreed that the parking sign is not readable from a vehicle, and the ICP state that a driver should be able to leave his car to check a parking sign if it is not readable from the vehicle and then return and leave if they do not accept.

:money:

twhitehousescat

as posted by Gan at pepipoo

We know this area very well indeed

I paid a visit to the area to take photos of the signs that have now been used successfully to defend several claims

IIRC, the PCM contract for the location requires that they allow drivers ten minutes for dropping off

sheldrickB

Thank you for this information, do you know where there are details of this contract should I need to use it in my case?

Would you be able to post the images for me also, as I live in Essex so can't get to the area to take a picture of the sign myself - thanks!

twhitehousescat

perhaps go back to peppipoo and ask gan?

I presume its you posting on their as well?

sheldrickB

Ha yeah that was me too!

Coupon-mad

sheldrickB wrote: »

I've received letters from PCM, Trace Debt Recovery and Gladstones Solicitors...

...do you know where there are details of this contract should I need to use it in my case?

Would you be able to post the images for me also, as I live in Essex so can't get to the area to take a picture of the sign myself - thanks!

The Parking Prankster has details of this site, as does the BMPA, a free charity, look:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/214269665-Hayes-and-Harlington-Station-Roboclaim

even though my car was still for literally 5 seconds.

I suggest you contact the BMPA for free advice. You will almost certainly be facing a court claim but do not panic - defend it right and you will find it discontinued or G's will file their evidence late and generally, I would say these are there to be won by the defendant:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/gladstones-epic-fail-hayes-and.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/court-report-oxford-another-gladstones.html

You should certainly also counter claim for damages & distress under the DPA (a three figure sum for you, no need to prove loss, just the facts of the breach) because there was no 'reasonable cause' for PCM to get your data at all.

Trevor Whitehouse's Cat is correct:

the PCM contract for the location requires that they allow drivers ten minutes for dropping off

Yes, the second bullet point in the contract with Ballymore (Hayes) Ltd says: “10 Min Max Drop and Collection around station area – no unattended vehicles at anytime”.

I have asked the BMPA if they will host that contract on the above page as an extra link because I couldn't see it there today. They DO have the signage photos you wanted though, in that linked article.

Final suggestions:

- contact Sue Pollitt at Hillingdon Trading Standards and ask her if she was aware that the landowner contract has that '10 minute grace period' clause and did PCM keep that detail from her?! She is monitoring complaints about that location so get on it and press her that the fact PCM are issuing immediate tickets and not allowing the 10 mins grace means surely TS could investigate a possible criminal matter or at the very least, aggressive business practice by demanding money and getting DVLA data without reasonable cause (due to the 10 min fact).

- also John McDonnell MP has been involved in assisting a constituent of his, so get onto your own MP as well. See the BMPA page linked above for John McDonnell's letter and the signage photos taken in 2016 by contacts from the BMPA.

- are you up for going straight for a LBCCC to PCM and Ballymore (Hayes) Ltd? This claim against you WILL happen otherwise, so it is up to you whether you pre-empt it with your own LBCCC and claim, or wait and do a defence & counter-claim. We can help comment if you start the wording off...

Coupon-mad

The BMPA link above now has the contract up as well, showing the 10 minutes grace that must be allowed.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The BMPA link above now has the contract up as well, showing the 10 minutes grace that must be allowed.

That contract, dated 2015, has not been updated to reflect the fact that PCM are (and were at the time) no longer members of the BPA. All the references (possibly including the authority for them to take legal action) to the BPA and the CoP must throw doubt as to its legitimacy.

PCM joined the IPC in 2014.