PCN Euro Car Parks

azz007

Redx wrote: »

doesnt have to say anything at all, its not a regulated industry

its a windscreen Notice To Driver if placed on the vehicle (except the ones like the myparkingcharge notice by VCS) , which are affixed to the vehicle on the date of the incident

and a postal notice is sent to the keeper after the PPC have obtained keeper details from the DVLA, hence Notice To Keeper , which comes in the post and should come within 14 days to adhere to POFA2012

Just got confused though with what Coupon mad at said expecting a 2nd letter NTK

Redx

they may send a reminder, but any invoice coming through the post that purports to be a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is a postal Notice TO the KEEPER (NTK)

you wont find any legislation that says what the wording should be , but POFA2012 does set out certain conditions on some of the wording used and the timescales

if they dont follow POFA2012, it could just say "you owe us £60 for the fact that your vehicle was on (name of site) for the following reasons (blah blah) on DATE from START TIME to END TIME

or something similar

read the recent MURDO FRASER proposals where he talks about this topic

azz007

Redx wrote: »

if they dont follow POFA2012, it could just say "you owe us £60 for the fact that your vehicle was on (name of site) for the following reasons (blah blah) on DATE from START TIME to END TIME

not sure bout a follow up as keeper already had the appeal rejected and given a popla.
the full PCN letter is on my drobbox share, if you take a look so is this non compliant ?
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/sh/4ul55nriethhmhh/AADz4iuVTfuQYdu6mdPq2-hGa?dl=0

Redx wrote: »

read the recent MURDO FRASER proposals where he talks about this topic

not heard of this, can you pount me in the right direction.

KeithP

Have you tried posting proper links?

Also sticking recent MURDO FRASER proposals into google will enlighten you.

azz007

I thought I couldn't post links and was told to replace tt with xx

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4ul55nriethhmhh/AADz4iuVTfuQYdu6mdPq2-hGa?dl=0

Coupon-mad

azz007 wrote: »

The letter is only titled Parking Charge Notice. ( this letter could have even been a windscreen pcn)

Doesnt say anywhere or any heading that says Notice to Keeper or NTK ???

No need for question marks. The NEWBIES thread tells you the first letter is effectively the 'NTK' (even if they call it a PCN) because it's a notice that goes to the keeper.

azz007

Been a long wait. On the popla comments i focused on the signage and charge/penatly compared to Parking Eye vs Beavis. showed both signs as comparison.

---

Verification Code
2413527021

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Carly *****
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was on site without a valid pay and display ticket or permit being purchased

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: !!!8226; The appellant says that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. !!!8226; They say that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge. !!!8226; The appellant says that the operator has not demonstrated compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically section 20.5a and the images provided do not have a date and time stamp on them. !!!8226; They say that they question the operator!!!8217;s authority to issue PCNs on site. !!!8226; The appellant says that they question the accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and says that the signage does not state what the data is used for. !!!8226; They say that the amount demanded is a penalty and that there is insufficient notice of the sum itself.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked on site without a valid pay and display ticket or permit being purchased. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says that the amount demanded is a penalty and that there is insufficient notice of the sum itself. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: !!!8220;!!!8230;the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.!!!8221; As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: !!!8220;You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.!!!8221; Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: !!!8220;You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; of the charge. The Act then moved on to define !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) !!!8220;adequate notice!!!8221; means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is not sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. This is due to the charge amount being written within a paragraph of text and is not prominent on the signage. As I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had the opportunity to see the charge amount, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.