Never issued PCN and can prove, yet appeal still rejected

Bell-liv

Advice and assistance appreciated...
On 17th Dec I received a NTK from Millenium Parking Services for a private parking offence committed on 8th Nov. The NTK stated that 'a PCN was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle at the time of issue'. It stated that as I had failed to respond to the PCN the fine was increased to £100.

I responded by email with the stock newbie email reply with the added caveat that I had witness evidence that a PCN was never issued to my vehicle. This was Ina addition to challenging the impossible to read sineage.

MPS sent me a photo of my vehicle parked outside of a bay without a PCN attached. One email later mentioning perverting the course of justice and on 17th January MPS confirmed that the attendant recorded that he failed to issue a PCN as the vehicle left before he was able to do so.

Despite their admission, I have received a £150 debt recovery letter and now today 25th Jan, I have received a letter from MPS stating that I have to pay £60, appeal to IAS or face court (which I would welcome in the circumstances).

At no point have I identified the driver and I will not pay.

The whole situation stinks of exploiting drivers fears for money without PCN's ever being issued.

MPS are members of BPA and ICO on their website.

Any advice is appreciated prior to an IAS appeal

twhitehousescat

no ticket on car = ANPR method , ticket to be received within 14 day or they forfit the right to use POFa 2012 to their advantage

"thanks for your email stating no ticket on car , you are late with NTK , no reliance on POFa , driver ? sorry cant remember"

have a nice day

save the email stating no ticket on car

Bell-liv

Their reply was that the attendant physically took a photograph of the vehicle in contravention, returned to his vehicle, saw the driver return to the car then leave before any ticket could be issued...

twhitehousescat

Bell-liv wrote: »

Their reply was that the attendant physically took a photograph of the vehicle in contravention, returned to his vehicle, saw the driver return to the car then leave before any ticket could be issued...

that is classed as ANPR method , ie take photos and issue ticket from head office

Bell-liv

Thanks for the reply - do you think I should now simply ignore or follow the rabbit down the warren and appeal to IAS?

Bell-liv

I have received a 'letter before claim' from Gladstones Solicitors requesting a full written response within 14 days. Is this yet another way for me to set out my defence, having already outlined my defence to the parking company and IAS?
Any advice appreciated whether I should reply fully to Gladstones or wait for the court summons if one ever comes as I've already made my case clear to the company and the IAS?

Coupon-mad

You didn't defend yet, you only 'appealed'.

So this time it's a response to a LBCCC that is needed. Best to search the forum (this board only) for the words 'Gladstones LBCCC' to find recent examples to crib from, and read post #2 (only) of the NEWBIES thread now which covers this stage and actual court claim stage. Do some reading over the weekend if you have time, to be prepared.

Loadsofchildren123

In post #1 you said Millennium is BPA - it's IPC. Changed from BPA to them in November 2015.

Dont id the driver and rely on POFA. Keep it simple.

Bell-liv

Thank you both. I probably fell into the trap of most by appealing to the IAS, with their reply as follows:

---

"While I note the Appellant's comments, I am satisfied that the contractual signage was in place in the vicinity of the vehicle at the time of the parking event and therefore that the driver was given adequate notice as to the terms and conditions applicable when parking at this site. From the images provided it is clear that the Appellant's vehicle was parked otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms.

I note the Appellant’s comments with regards to the driver at all material times. I am satisfied that the Operator is pursuing the Appellant as the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the parking event. The point raised by the Appellant with regards to the timescales as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is therefore irrelevant. In the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the Driver. As the Appellant provides no documentary proof as to their whereabouts I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the Driver as appears to be claimed.

On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the driver was made reasonably aware of the terms and conditions of parking at this site and that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the Parking Charge based on mitigating circumstances.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

---

I'll get reading the newbie thread 2 over the weekend and compile a response to the lbccc. Nigh on every communication I've had from the parking company Millenium contains contradictions or errors and so it strikes me as a case that could be easily unpicked.

I'm thinking that since all their initial communication contained letters stating that a PCN was attached to my vehicle, only for Millenium to later admit one was not issued after I pointed out that I had, at no time, any knowledge of been issued a PCN, it may be worth applying to the dvla to find out what criteria Millenium used to access my keeper details in the first place?

Coupon-mad

If you were not the driver, explicitly reiterate that fact NOW in the response you make to this LBCCC. Loads of examples here but what the IAS stated (expecting the defendant to prove a negative) was a pile of rubbish.

Oh, and you can mention the conflict of interests issue, in an 'IAS' turning down an appeal then 'Gladstones' handling the claim. Both being run by Hurley and Davies, who you can allege do not present this matter with clean hands.

If you didn't know this fact, search the forum for 'Hurley clean hands' or 'Gladstones conflict IAS'.

Bell-liv

Thank you coupon mad.
My IAS appeallant response was as follows, and I would base any final defence around it:

---

The appellant made their response on 17/02/2017 23:01:17.

1) Regarding the insinuation that my photograph of the appalling signage at the site, I attach further photographs to demonstrate the fact that my photos of the signage are taken from the drivers seat of a vehicle on the approach to the car park. If MPS wish to suggest a less favourable perspective of a drivers view of the signage than from the very drivers seat itself, then I would welcome this. As stated, from the perspective of a driver entering the car park, it is not possible to view the sign, let alone read it.

2) MPS report that I am the driver. At no time have I identified the driver as i am unable to due to the incorrect and late information.

3) I attach MPS' initial NTK, which I can evidence was received on 17/12/16, 39 days after the alleged offence. The NTK clearly states, and I have highlighted that:
'...at the date of this notice, remains unpaid in full and for which the balance remains outstanding. A Parking Charge Notice (Notice to driver) was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle at the time of issue...'.
The notice goes on to state:
'...at the time the charge was incurred, a Notice to driver was affixed to the vehicle...'

On 17/01/2017, exactly 70 days after the alleged offence, MPS email me and confirm, for the first time, that no PCN was affixed to my vehicle.
This confirms that the information in the (already incorrectly issued) NTK is either knowingly or accidentally incorrect.

This NTK was issued by the anpr method by a 'hit and run' attendant who has done nothing more than photograph my vehicle.

At no time have MPs assisted me with identifying the driver. I assume this is due to the fact that there is no evidence of the alleged 'drive off'.

This 'charge' arises from a completely incorrect NTK issued by stealth, by a company that adopts either a wilfully misleading or incompetent approach to their issue of parking charges on poorly signposted land.

---

I'll get reading and post my reply before submitting it.