Parking Charge Notice from PCM in Hayes and Harlington

Chuck.Paes

Hello,

Hoping someone can help.

As the keeper of this vehicle, I received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. The notice is for: “Parked outside of marked bay / or restricted road /landscaped / paved areas or causing an obstruction or inconvenience to others”.

Some things to note are:
• This was a non-ANPR case.
• There was no ticket on the car itself while this incident occurred.
• There is no indication in the letter to keeper that a notice to driver had been issued while on site when this incident occurred, they claim they are unaware of the driver’s name or address.
• The PCN was sent to the keeper via post within 8 days of the incident occurring.
• The PCN states the time the incident occurred, but not the duration/period.

I replied as the keeper using a template from MSE (not the one in the forum sticky, unfortunately I came across this after I had already sent the appeal), appealing this charge to the keeper and declined to name the driver.

In the appeal we sent pictures from the car dash camera as evidence the car was NOT parked and was manoeuvring, but they have pictures of the passenger getting out of the car which they sent to me in their rejection letter stating the car had stopped even if it were for a short while to let the passenger out.

Here is what happened:

We entered the Station Approach road in Hayes and Harlington station to use the station drop off area. Due to the Crossrail works the drop off area is not longer in use, and we were unaware of this. The dash cam shows the car approaching the Station Approach, and manoeuvre to the right to make a 3-point turn just before the original station drop-off area as this area is closed/not in use.

During this manoeuvre the car is station for a period of 24 seconds while the passenger gets out and the car reverses and leaves. We were unaware this section of the Road was Private, until we received the PCN via the post and after we watched the videos.

Can someone suggest if it is worth fighting this, we have been reading a lot and had put together another appeal to PCM but not sure if it will make any difference after the first appeal being rejected. We are not sure on the process, i.e. if we only get one chance to appeal before taking it to the IAS (as PCM are members of IPC).

We’ve read the Schedule 4 Protection of Freedom Act 2012, which contradicts what PCM can do. However, we are no expert on law and worried our interpretation of the law might be incorrect. Perhaps someone can confirm on the below points from the PoFA 2012 points listed below.


PCM have also have not adhered to some of the IPC Code of Practice. We’ve put together another 5-page appeal to PCM, but not sure if we can send it now due to the first one being rejected and they have advised we go to the IAS for an independent appeal process in their rejection letter.

1. As this is a non-ANPR case, don’t they have to issue a notice to driver in the first instance while the vehicle is still on site?
2. Don’t they have to wait until after the 28 days to send a NTK?
3. Don’t they have to provide Grace Period (as stated in the IPC code of practice) even if the PCM sign says no grace period (We saw a picture of the signage from someone else uploading the photo online)
4. We may also have a case for “Predatory Tactics” used by PCM which is against the IPC CoP.

We’ve been reading the Schedule 4 PoFA 2012:

Perhaps someone can clear this as well. Our understanding is that they can only claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper if they meet all conditions of the legislation.

• As per the legislation for Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch. 4 para 4(2)(a)

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4 (1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6,!11!and!12!(so far as applicable) are met; and


• As per the legislation for Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch. 4 para. 5(1)(a) and Sch. 4 para. 6(1)(a)

5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
6 (1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(b) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

5(1)(a) – why did the Parking Attendant not issue a PCN to the driver while on site as this is not an ANPR case? The Parking Attendant was on site and took the photos.

6(1)(b) - Can we argue that because PCM did not provide a PCN to the driver/car in a non-ANPR case, their claim is invalid, as stated in this point?


• As per the legislation for Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch. 4 para. 7(1)(4)(a)(b)

7 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(4) The notice must be given—
(a) before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b) while the vehicle is stationary, by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

7(1) – No notice to driver while on site.
7(2)(a) – The notice does not specify the period of parking.
7(4)(a) – Notice not issued to the driver/car before he vehicle was removed from the land.
7(4)(b) – No ticket affixed to the car while it was stationary or handing it to the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle i.e. the driver

Thanks and apologies its turned out to be a long post. Posting this again here as it was posted on the wrong board.

Coupon-mad

PCM have also have not adhered to some of the IPC Code of Practice. We’ve put together another 5-page appeal to PCM, but not sure if we can send it now due to the first one being rejected

NO-ONE HERE WILL TELL YOU TO PAY. THIS DOES NOT AFFECT CREDIT RATING (NO CCJ AS LONG AS NO COURT STAGE IS IGNORED).

Your 5 page appeal to PCM is pointless. DO NOT DO THAT. They are nasty ex-clampers who appeared on Watchdog, this is them, their employees must be sooo proud of their 'job' and what they do (NOT):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sh3sr

Save the defence for - defence stage, when Gladstones write a LBCCC or serve a claim. Defendable!

and they have advised we go to the IAS for an independent appeal process in their rejection letter.

They haven't ''advised'' anything, they have no customers, you are not one, you are their victim. IAS is not worth trying, as covered all over the forum on every thread about IPC firms/PCM (IAS is as bad as PCM's appeal stage = consumers have no chance at all and the word 'independent' does not fairly describe that kangaroo court, in our opinion here.

Stop trying to take a step that leads nowhere. Wait. Be aware what you are dealing with, only won in court (and almost always won).

Chuck.Paes

Thank you for your reply.

The intention to write to them was to show that they are likely to lose on the points stated, should they decide to take this to court.

Are you able to give your option on the below points. We just want to understand that we have a case to defend should this go to that.

1. As this is a non-ANPR case, don’t they (PCM) have to issue a notice to driver in the first instance while the vehicle is still on site?

2. Don’t they have to wait until after the 28 days before they send a NTK?

3. Don’t they have to provide "Grace Period" (as stated in the IPC code of practice) even if the PCM sign at the site says no grace period (We saw a picture of the signage from someone else uploading the photo online).

4. We may also have a case for “Predatory Tactics” used by PCM which is against the IPC CoP. Could we use this against them, that the Parking Attendant (PA) could have simply advised the driver or give the driver a chance to move.

The car had stopped for 24 seconds, it seems like the PA was prepared well before the car had stopped to take the photos.

Should we draw the position of the car on that road using a photo from google maps to give a better understanding? (We are cautious of uploading the actual images in case PCM are on the forum/monitoring).

We have clear evidence from the car recording camera that the car had only stopped for 24 seconds.

Fruitcake

Images from a hand held camera have been deemed (unfortunately) to comply with the POFA and is classed as equivalent to ANPR.

You know it's borax, we no it's bollards, but the powers that be think it is OK.

Chuck.Paes

Thank you all for your input.

System

However, your strongest point is that this is a station car park where byelaws no doubt apply.

It isn't. They don't.

Go over to the Parking Prankster site where this is covered in detail.

Grace period and the fact the signs are 9 ft high with small print are the winning arguments here.

Chuck.Paes

Thank you everyone for input.

As not to waste other peoples time on this thread, we've come to a decision on this.

DarkShadow

I see this happening in various cross rail sites, we need a party that will abolish private parking companies.

System

I see this happening in various cross rail sites, we need a party that will abolish private parking companies.

I'd prefer to have a party when they abolish private parking companies.

PS It is not a rail site. It's an access area to a rail site but outside of rail land.

Fruitcake

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It isn't. They don't.

Go over to the Parking Prankster site where this is covered in detail.

Grace period and the fact the signs are 9 ft high with small print are the winning arguments here.

My apologies. I thought the station approach would be covered by byelaws. I will delete my other post accordingly.

Fruitcake

Chuck.Paes wrote: »

Thank you everyone for input.

As not to waste other peoples time on this thread, we've come to a decision on this.

I hope the decision is to appeal and not pay the scammers. If you do the latter it will be a kick in the teeth for everyone here that gives up their time for free to help others, and will help the scammers to carry out their vile trade on other more vulnerable victims.