WY Parking PCN

jorge_gills

Hi all,

I have read the FAQ thread but wanted to get advice on my specific issue.

A PCN was left on the windscreen on 26/05/17 and 27/05/17 by WY Parking (BPA registered). Reason for issue: Parked in a permit only parking area without clearly displaying a valid permit.

The Keeper will be sending the blue template to WY today. The PCN says photographic evidence has been taken of the vehicle - should I request these photos at this initial stage i.e adding to the blue template?

Furthermore there were actually 2 PCNs on the windscreen, one dated ~8pm on the 26th and the other at ~1pm on the 27th - the car had not been moved between these times so I believe there was only one alleged breach of contract (there are no time restrictions i.e 24/7 enforcement). Again, should this be mentioned at the initial appeal stage or wait until POPLA?

Many thanks.

Umkomaas

You can ask for the photos, but leave the 'two tickets' issue for POPLA. Nothing you say to the PPC will change their position.

jorge_gills

I have received the appeal rejection from the PPC today, so time to start thinking about POPLA.

A bit more information on this:
The car was parked in a back alley adjacent to flats. There is no car park entrance sign but there are signs on the wall - you require a residents permit to park here. My main argument is that the car wasn't parked in one of the clear yellow bays, but at the end, where there is rubbish and construction waste. The driver genuinely did not think this area was subject to the parking restrictions.

I have begun to construct my appeal with the main points being signage and landowner authority. However I am unsure if the signage argument is that valid as I don't think the signs are actually that bad up close:
hxxp://s142.photobucket.com/user/BlueGills93/media/20170624_164754.jpg.html

I am also unsure how to approach the issue of the bays and whether this is a valid argument as well?
This is a picture of the area - the car was parked where this blue one is:
hxxp://s142.photobucket.com/user/BlueGills93/media/47c33fc2-3548-48c6-a59b-91f8c3cdc33c.jpg.html
I think it's reasonable to say the driver assumed the parking restrictions ended at the end of the yellow bay as even the brickwork changes beyond that point. There are signs up beyond the bay though, albeit small.

Finally there is the issue of receiving two tickets for the same 'offence' - it seems strange to argue this point if I'm arguing against them issuing any at all? I can't say I only agree with one of them!

Thank you.

Umkomaas

http://s142.photobucket.com/user/BlueGills93/media/20170624_164754.jpg.html

I don't think the signs are actually that bad up close:

It's not whether you don't think the signs 'are actually that bad', a 'not bad' contract is no contract. The signs (the contract with you) has to comply fully with the BPA Code of Practice.

But these are 'forbidding signs' which cannot form a contract with you! Your potential 'get out of jail card! Not bad for signs that you don't think 'are actually that bad'!

http://s142.photobucket.com/user/BlueGills93/media/47c33fc2-3548-48c6-a59b-91f8c3cdc33c.jpg.html

I can only see one sign on the wall. Were there others? Was there a warning sign at the entry to the road? Check the BPA Code of Practice, Annex B for what that warning sign should look like.

If there isn't one at the entry, you need to get photos of that area too.

jorge_gills

I have appealed to POPLA with the main points above but also included the fact that no NTK has been received and it was past the 56 day window when I submitted the appeal.

However I have been asked to respond to the Operator's case in which they state the driver's details were confirmed on appeal. This is of course a load of rubbish - does my response need to say anything else other than the driver has not been identified and my point regarding NTK in my appeal stands?

They have also obtained the keeper's details from the DVLA as their response contains a screenshot of their system which shows an address that has not been mentioned in the correspondence - the only way they could have obtained this is from the DVLA. Shall I mention this as well at this stage?

Thanks.

Redx

yes, add these points (and others) to your rebuttal

if they havent provided a valid landholder contract , add that in

plus any other omissions or errors

also double check what they say about signage and meeting the BPA CoP, rebut this if possible too

jorge_gills

Thank you, the rebuttal has been posted so I await the final assessment.

jorge_gills

POPLA have allowed the appeal! The reason stated is no evidence of landowner authority although I suspect there were other points that would have won it for me.

Thank you all for your help.

Coupon-mad

jorge_gills wrote: »

POPLA have allowed the appeal! The reason stated is no evidence of landowner authority although I suspect there were other points that would have won it for me.

Great news! Please do post the decision (with paragraph breaks added!) into 'POPLA Decisions' with a link back to this thread and a line saying which PPC you beat.

jorge_gills

Hi again.

After a couple of months of debt recovery letters I have received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors. It looks like just another threatening letter as all they ask is for payment within 14 days bla bla.

Just wanted to check here first before doing anything/nothing. It's a bit odd given the POPLA appeal was successful?

Thanks.

Umkomaas

A strong email complaint to the BPA and DVLA. This should not be happening. Ask that WY Parking be sanctioned for allowing this.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk