I'm not sure on which grounds to appeal my PCN...

slurmcan

I received a PCN last week, which included a photo of the back of my car and a photo of the driver next to the car. The reason of issue on the PCN is 'non patron'. There is a chance that this is correct, I don't know, but it is possible that the driver parked there to go to the shop next door. I am wondering how they can prove that the driver was a non-patron? I do not want to appeal on the grounds that the driver was a patron without having proof of that, but they have provided no proof that the driver was not a patron. My other possible grounds for appeal are that the charge is unreasonable (£100). My car was parked there for 10 minutes. Should I risk it and appeal on the grounds that the driver was a patron? Or should I accept liability but appeal on the grounds of an unreasonable charge? If anyone can help with links/letter templates I would be very grateful. I hope I have posted this in the right place, apologies if not, I've found the navigation of this forum quite complicated!!

slurmcan

Also, I read an article that suggested paying what I deem to be a reasonable amount for the time the driver was parked there (e.g. similar amount to what a local authority would charge for public parking). It also suggested stating in a letter that that is all I am willing to pay and that I do not wish to enter into any further correspondence about the matter. Would this work?

fisherjim

slurmcan wrote: »

Also, I read an article that suggested paying what I deem to be a reasonable amount for the time I was parked there (e.g. similar amount to what a local authority would charge for public parking). It also suggested stating in a letter that that is all I am willing to pay and that I do not wish to enter into any further correspondence about the matter. Would this work?

No forget it read the newbies thread first.

slurmcan

I have read it, but couldn't see anything about appealing on the grounds of an unreasonable charge? The template letter also has typos...

Fruitcake

slurmcan wrote: »

I have read it, but couldn't see anything about appealing on the grounds of an unreasonable charge? The template letter also has typos...

You don't appeal about unreasonable charges, not since the Beavis case was lost in 2015. Nor do you appeal on what happened on the day, but there are loads of other appeal points. In addition, they can't prove an occupant of the car wasn't a patron, so they are stuffed.

Which template has typos in it please? There are two, one for BPA members and one for IPC members.

What is the name of the parking company please?

Don't offer to pay anything. You want to pay nowt, they want £100, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Do not pay, do not ignore, do not reveal who was driving, do not miss the appeal deadline but do not appeal a windscreen ticket too soon. You should edit your original post and get into the habit of only referring to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people as far as anyone is concerned.

pogofish

slurmcan wrote: »

I have read it, but couldn't see anything about appealing on the grounds of an unreasonable charge? The template letter also has typos...

PPCs don't know the meaning of unreasonable - They just want money.

Also, any appeal based on fact or common sense will fail.

The Newbies Sticky at the top of this forum lays-out the viable and effective strategies, don't wast time on anything else!

slurmcan

Oh, ok, thanks. I just thought they might have video footage of the driver walking past the entrance or something, but even then that doesn't prove they didn't go in...

The typo (sorry, shouldn't have said 'typos', there is only one) is in the letter to an IPC company:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are the the landowner?


Should this say 'Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?'?

The name of the parking company is National Parking Enforcement Ltd.

I don't really understand everything in the template letter (ie. legal stuff), so I am concerned that they will respond with some legal stuff I also won't understand!

slurmcan

In this list provided in the IPC letter:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

...could I also add this?:

6. Please provide proof that the driver was not a patron.

???

Fruitcake

slurmcan wrote: »

In this list provided in the IPC letter:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

...could I also add this?:

6. Please provide proof that the driver was not a patron.

???

Most definitely. The idea of the template is to stop the inexperienced from giving away the driver's identity. So many people 'phone up or write an appeal saying, I parked ... or something similar that gives the scammers the driver's identity and thus throws away a very valuable "no keeper liability" appeal point.

You can add or amend the template's in any way you want, just don't give away the driver's identity.

Coupon-mad

Typo put right!

...could I also add this?:

6. Please provide proof that the driver was not a patron.

Of course. Just DO NOT appeal on 'it's too high a charge/no loss' and DO NOT say who was driving. That's why the templates are there, to stop people writing daft appeals that make their position weaker.

You will understand this about NPE:

https://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/02/01/parking-scam-a-letter-to-the-government/

https://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/06/04/stop-heavy-handed-parking-enforcement-at-earlham-house-shops/

http://www.edp24.co.uk/motoring/petition-demands-removal-of-cctv-cameras-in-earlham-house-shopping-centre-1-4593021

https://www.change.org/p/bellgold-properties-ltd-safeguard-earlham-house-shops-say-no-to-npe-s-heavy-handed-parking-enforcement

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/motorists-stung-for-using-wrong-entrance-to-norwich-car-park-but-complaints-spark-u-turn-1-3911665

Presumably you have searched this forum for 'NPE' and read other threads.

slurmcan

Quick update: I complained to the store, and the next day the PCN was cancelled

Thanks for all your help!!