PCM Parking Charge at Hayes and Harlington Station

Gooston

Is this okay for a reply back to the DVLA?


"The date on this contract is 2009 though PCM have told you it is operational from 28/11/2016. It appears PCM wish to give the impression that the terms on which they rely go back to 2009 and not end 2016. I'd hope that the DVLA will not lend any support to misdirection.

The second issue is that though the signs say "no waiting", there has to be a period of time for any driver to have these terms brought to their attention. There is no indication on the Parking Charge as the length of time allowed for a reasonable person to see and read the signs. Judges have pointed this out and again there cannot be a "reasonable cause" without there being an allowance for the contract to be formed. Have PCM advised what this is?"

Gooston

Will my defence have to form around the basis that there was no time for the driver to form a contract as the signs state there is no grace period and this case not being a case of trespassing?

Gooston

Actually, I'm sorry, but on the "new" contract it has Date of Original Instruction 10th Nov 2009 and no date of new instruction. Whereas the "old" contract has the same Date of Original Instruction and a Date of New Instruction of 1st Oct 2012. I'll upload later for clarity but something seems off to me.

Gooston

Apparent new contract, notice; no date of new instruction: http://imgur.com/OaA69F0

Previous contract on BMPA. Note; date of new instruction present: http://imgur.com/MIOYpr8

At this point, is it worth bringing up the contract or would I have to fight the no grace period and ridiculously difficult to read signage?

PM people. Follow this thread! I can't answer all of you.

Timothea

All is not lost.

First, stopping briefly (e.g. due to traffic or pedestrians) and loading/unloading (including passengers) is not parking. The KADOE contract between DVLA and PCM UK specifies the permitted purpose as "to seek recovery ... of unpaid parking charges ..." Assuming that PCM UK obtained the registered keeper's details from DVLA electronically, you still have a valid DPA claim against PCM UK and Ballymore, as well as a defence for the parking charges.

If you haven't done it already, you need to make a data access request to DVLA to find out everything about each time the registered keeper's details were obtained.

Second, you also have a valid DPA claim and a defence for the parking charges based on the completely inadequate signage and the lack of any grace period. Even the IPC Code of Practice requires a grace period, and the KADOE contract, the Ballymore contract and the Supreme Court in ParkingEye -v- Beavis all require the COP to be followed.

Third, it appears that, as a result of contacting Ballymore, new terms have now been agreed with PCM UK. This is unfortunate, but it does not alter your position. The lack of a variation date on the new contract supports your position that the previous terms were in effect on the relevant dates. Perhaps it was signed before the BMPA contract version. It could even be the original contract! It can't be a valid contract variation without a variation date.

Go ahead with sending a Section 10 Data Subject Notice to PCM UK and writing to John McDonnell MP (as per post #58).

Coupon-mad

Gooston wrote: »

Apparent new contract, notice; no date of new instruction: http://imgur.com/OaA69F0

Previous contract on BMPA. Note; date of new instruction present: http://imgur.com/MIOYpr8

At this point, is it worth bringing up the contract or would I have to fight the no grace period and ridiculously difficult to read signage?

PM people. Follow this thread! I can't answer all of you.

Looks dodgy to me - have you sent a copy to the BMPA, they will be interested to look at this.

Gooston

Thanks Timothea, I will look into that tomorrow as I have a day off.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks dodgy to me - have you sent a copy to the BMPA, they will be interested to look at this.

I have done this, I've update them on the following too. Not quite an update but I checked my emails when I got into work this morning and had a reply from the DVLA sitting there:


"Good morning (name),

Please see the attached copy of the email from the general manager of High Point Village to Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, this email was attaching the latest version of the landowner agreement and is dated 28/11/2016.

DVLA is satisfied that Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd had sufficient evidence in place to request the registered keeper details of (reg number).

Signage is not a requirement for demonstrating reasonable cause to the DVLA when requesting information; however, DVLA does expect private parking companies to comply with the requirements of the appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Code of Practice. DVLA expect the ATA to investigate any claims that signage does not comply with their Code of Practice, take appropriate action and if necessary inform the DVLA.

If you believe that the signage for this location does not comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice, you may wish to contact the IPC, at 4 The Stables, Red Cow Yard, Knutsford WA16 6DG."


The email did include an email attachment with the Nov 2016 date. Looks likes PCM have sorted out the contract issue but I think the DVLA might be trying to cover their backs and nudging me towards complaining to the IPC. Has anyone had any progress in the past complaining to the IPC/ATA because the signage clearly does not comply with ATA's Code of Practice.


Thanks for helping me through this everyone!

DollyDee_2

I think DVLA's address for IPC is out of date!

Umkomaas

DollyDee wrote: »

I think DVLA's address for IPC is out of date!

I think DVLA's template reply is out of date!

Little care exercised, little concern for the complainant!

Coupon-mad

Has anyone had any progress in the past complaining to the IPC/ATA because the signage clearly does not comply with ATA's Code of Practice.

Never with the IPC but that's not a reason not to complain to them. Not to the Red Cow Yard address though!