Highview Parking PCN – ANPR at Norwich Riverside Retail Park twice on the same day

MACTHEKNIFE_2

I was wondering if anyone could help with this. I have received two charge notices from Highview Parking for the Riverside Retail Park car park A & B in Norwich on the same day. The driver of the vehicle believed the maximum stay was 3-hours rather than as I now believe 2.5 hours. Both charge notices are for a duration of 2.58 hours. The evidence provided by Highview in the Charge Notice for both is basis ANPR of the car entering and leaving the car parks rather than actually in the parking pay and therefore no evidence of the duration of the parking is provided. There was no penalty notice attached to the car in either case.
The incidents occurred on 8th August 2017 and the date of the notice is 20th November 2017 (over 100 days ~3.4 months after the event). The notices arrived 22nd November 2017. Therefore the notices arrived well outside 14-days which I understand is significant. As it’s such a long time after the event I will not be able to provide any receipts relating to any purchases made in Norwich on that day and as they would have been cash payments there are no bank/credit card statements to show any purchases made.
The car is owned by the individual to whom the charge notices were sent and is not a rental vehicle. Highview have not been advised who the driver of the car was (nor will they). It is unclear if the driver could be identified from the photographs provided in the Charge Notice.
The charge notice makes reference to the “landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis”. I’m not sure if this makes it any different from other PCN’s or is just there to intimidate people to make it seem like Highview know what they are doing.
Highview do not own the car parks in question, apparently Savills PLC are the owners. These car parks are different to the Morrison’s Riverside car park.
What is the best way to appeal these charge notices as I have until 4th December before the charge is apparently increased from £40 to £70.

Thanks very much in advance

KeithP

There is no way the driver can be identified from the photographs.

Have a look at other Highview threads posted today and you will find a sure fire way of getting rid of this.

What does it matter that the charge goes from £40 to £70?
Surely you are planning on paying nothing.

Redx

HIGHVIEW again !!

read this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5748494

adapt the linked template appeal and appeal each one as KEEPER , choosing INCORRECT INFORMATION

do not reveal who was driving

MACTHEKNIFE_2

so basically just send them this (twice) without any further modification?

· [FONT=&quot]“ [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge, mainly for the following two reasons.

You have failed POFA2012 due to late delivery of the NTK .

Also Clause #13 of the BPA CoP applies here and this appeal, any subsequent appeal and also any court case will have this as a prominent argument as to why this invoice should be cancelled.

Should you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.



Yours faithfully,[/FONT]

Redx

NO

I said ADAPT it , not send it "as is" , so it does need MODIFICATION

remove the CLAUSE #13 GRACE PERIODS paragraph , then appeal twice on their website , once for each pcn ref , choosing KEEPER and the INCORRECT INFORMATION option out of the 2 options allowed

they have failed POFA2012, not grace periods, and certainly not both

MACTHEKNIFE_2

Thanks very much for this, very much appreciated. I’ll remove “[FONT=&quot]Also Clause #13 of the BPA CoP........[/FONT]. “ Sorry for not fully understanding but I don't have any real legal knowledge. While I'm sure you are 100% CORRECT I was wondering if any other viewers of this submission disagree with or have any further amendments to your great and very speedy advice.

Thanks again, it’s very much appreciated

Becks11

I have received a fine today for an alleged offence committed on 16 August. Looking at other comments, I am presuming this has been sent outside of the correct timeframe. Should I appeal?

KeithP

Becks11 wrote: »

I have received a fine today for an alleged offence committed on 16 August. Looking at other comments, I am presuming this has been sent outside of the correct timeframe. Should I appeal?

Yes you should appeal.

Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky/pinned thread?
It has full details about how to go about appealing.

If you have any further questions, please can you start a new thread.
Trying to address two issues on the same thread can only lead to confusion..

Umkomaas

Yet another wanton hijack. What’s wrong with people? Small wonder they ignore PPC signage as irrelevant.

Denise105

I know it says not to reply about an separate issue on the same thread but I just wanted to say hi and that we also got a letter today, for Riverside, for the 9th August.

I have appealed and stupidly said I was driving....

MACTHEKNIFE_2

It took a while but Highview came back today and advised “after reviewing our data and in view of the representations made in connection with its issue, we can confirm that we have decided to cancel this Notice and no further action is to be taken”



Thanks for all the help with this.