Care Parking NTK

Oldhandjedi

Good evening all, I am looking for a bit of advise about an NTK I recieved from Care Parking. In the letter it states I was issued a PCN which has not been paid and the reason for issue was Abused Patron Parking. By going onto Care Parking's website you are allowed to view photographs of your car taken by someone on site (I guess?) which does show a ticket on my windscreen but when I returned to my vehicle there definately wasn't one attached. I have recently returned to the car park to photograph the signage which states you are not allowed to leave the site whilst you use the car park but does not show a border or site dimensions. I did enter the store at the site but did not purchase anything, then went into the town to have a meal. I feel that as I have seen no evidence that I left the site it would be my word aginst theirs, does anyone else have a view on this?
Any advise would be very appreciated.

fil_cad

I'm sure they don't do court, if that's the case Jog on with life, some body may confirm soon

fisherjim

fil_cad wrote: »

I'm sure they don't do court, if that's the case Jog on with life, some body may confirm soon

Not much to fear from these:

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Care_Park_UK.html

Coupon-mad

I feel that as I have seen no evidence that I left the site it would be my word against theirs, does anyone else have a view on this?

I agree, and that will win at POPLA.

So appeal and say none of the occupants of the car 'left the site' and they were patrons (show any receipt as proof, but don't say who was driving). When you get a POPLA code, repeat that none of the occupants of the car left the site and the operator has no shown any evidence of:

- the driver leaving the site
- what constitutes the boundary of that 'site'
- how the boundary of 'the site' was demarcated and drawn to drivers' attention

They won't have any evidence and this then wins at POPLA.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Lega;, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

Specifically, a charge for leaving site is very difficult for a PPC to win in court. PPCs are required to mitigate their losses and inform the person about to leave the site of the financial consequences od doing so.

Oldhandjedi

Just a quick update on this, after an unsuccessful appeal to Care Parking (Anchor Security) I went onto the POPLA appeal and was successful. Appeal allowed on NTK not following strict wording on PoFA 2012. Happy days.

Coupon-mad

Well done and thanks for the update!

Can you please copy the POPLA decision itself* into POPLA DECISIONS and give a link back to this thread for people to read later, otherwise this thread won't be seen for long.



*State in the sticky thread which PPC you beat, and please split the decision into paragraphs.