NCP - Short Stay

caissa

Hi
I am a Newbie and having read the FAQ's I have technical questions that I can't find answers to.
My notice is from NCP and is a PCN to keeper as the evidence is photographic rather than ticket on windscreen.
Therefore I believe we are at section 9 of the PoFA 2012
The 'evidence' I have been provided with is two alleged timed photos of my vehicle which is totally unidentifiable, merely a couple of headlights and subsequent tail lights with the registration number showing in the bottom of the picture.
My first question is this sufficient to comply with 9 (2) (a), i.e. identify the vehicle?
I don't consider a dark photograph with a number plate inserted as sufficient evidence to identify the vehicle. Would I be correct?
Secondly, a sentence in the letter reads - 'Max Stay Exceeded' and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the sight ( name of town Short Stay) at the time of parking.
Again referring to 9 (2) (a) does this identify 'the relevant land on which it was parked'
I'm of the opinion that it does not as it does not give a specific address or even the name of the road in which the Short Stay is located.
My argument is that if I don't know the location of the alleged offence how can I acknowledge with any certainty that my vehicle was involved? They could have obtained my number plate from any number of sources.
I would appreciated comments if my arguments are flawed in any way and whether I would have a good chance of overturning notice based on non compliance to PoFA.
I should add that in addition to the two photos, there is a sentence stating - 'Photographic evidence that we hold online in relation to this Parking Charge may be viewed at a given website.'
My third question, is this reasonable, should I be expected to proactively go to the website and seek out further evidence?
I don't think I should but am I being naive? Is this sufficient for NCP to comply with PoFA.
I have looked at the website (which actually gives me a clue as the location of the car park). It invites me to enter my PCN number and my car registration which I have not done as I assume that this would provide evidence that I now know the location of the 'Short Stay' thus negating my defence of non compliance by NCP.
Again am I being reasonable here? Would this defence work? Or am I expected to log into the website and thus incriminate myself? Would there be clearer photos that can clearly identify the offending vehicle thus complying with my first question?
I suppose my main concern is, how much effort should I reasonably be expected to go to verify the validity of NCP's claim? Or is the onus on them to give me full disclosure in the PCN without me having to do extra work?
Finally, the ONE SIZE FITS ALL template, I believe implies that I know the location of the car park, which if my views above holds good can't be used.
Would it be safe to respond claiming non compliance to PoFA? Or would this give them a second change to provide more detailed evidence?

waamo

How on Earth are you making cutting and pasting an appeal so difficult? You are way overthinking this. NCP won't care less about your detailed analysis.

Just send the template as is.

Coupon-mad

The 'evidence' I have been provided with is two alleged timed photos of my vehicle which is totally unidentifiable, merely a couple of headlights and subsequent tail lights with the registration number showing in the bottom of the picture.
My first question is this sufficient to comply with 9 (2) (a), i.e. identify the vehicle?
I don't consider a dark photograph with a number plate inserted as sufficient evidence to identify the vehicle. Would I be correct?

Yes but I expect the wording in the PCN identifies the vehicle (i.e. names the VRN) and they got your data from the DVLA on that basis. So that's not going to win at POPLA.

Secondly, a sentence in the letter reads - 'Max Stay Exceeded' and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the sight ( name of town Short Stay) at the time of parking.
Again referring to 9 (2) (a) does this identify 'the relevant land on which it was parked'
I'm of the opinion that it does not as it does not give a specific address or even the name of the road in which the Short Stay is located.

I would agree if the NTK doesn't say somewhere else (in a title, or box on the right?) where the site is.

My argument is that if I don't know the location of the alleged offence how can I acknowledge with any certainty that my vehicle was involved? They could have obtained my number plate from any number of sources.
I would appreciated comments if my arguments are flawed in any way and whether I would have a good chance of overturning notice based on non compliance to PoFA.

Probably not on 'no keeper liability' based on the recent NCP NTKs we've seen in the past couple of months, since they removed the misleading wording that sounded like keeper liability was affected by an appeal. They put that right before Christmas.

So I think their NTKs are now OK. Unless it arrived at your house later than day 15?

I should add that in addition to the two photos, there is a sentence stating - 'Photographic evidence that we hold online in relation to this Parking Charge may be viewed at a given website.'
My third question, is this reasonable, should I be expected to proactively go to the website and seek out further evidence?

Nothing about this industry is reasonable, but again, this is normal, and does not win at POPLA.

I have looked at the website (which actually gives me a clue as the location of the car park). It invites me to enter my PCN number and my car registration which I have not done as I assume that this would provide evidence that I now know the location of the 'Short Stay' thus negating my defence of non compliance by NCP.

Now that's over-thinking it, just send the template appeal!

caissa

Thank you for your reply, I have sent the template as advised!
For the benefit of other readers I give further info to your comments

Yes but I expect the wording in the PCN identifies the vehicle (i.e. names the VRN) and they got your data from the DVLA on that basis.
Yes it states this in the PCN

I would agree if the NTK doesn't say somewhere else (in a title, or box on the right?) where the site is.
There is definitely no other address other than Manchester for reply. The website shows a train operating company though.
I think this is my best option for defending notice.

So I think their NTKs are now OK. Unless it arrived at your house later than day 15?
Unfortunately no, it was well before day 15. DVLA excelled themselves on this occasion!

Coupon-mad

'name of town' Short Stay

I agree that does not identify the location. POPLA might or might not agree.

I think this is my best option for defending notice.

Appealing, not 'defending'. There won't be any defence needed, even if you lose at POPLA.

Remember the issues with the NTK only apply as long as the driver is never implied or admitted.

KeithP

caissa wrote: »

DVLA excelled themselves on this occasion!

DVLA took no time at all.
The PPC has direct on-line access to the DVLA keeper info.

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]

caissa

Good news time,
For the benefit of other Newbies to this site like me, I give feed back to my first post

Received a reply to my challenge from NCP today:
'We are writing to let you know that we have reviewed the circumstances of this case and have decided to accept your representation. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.'
It goes on to say that it is for this contravention only and should not be considered in relation to any future PCN's. Then concludes with:
'This case is now closed and no further action will be taken'
It really was that simple!.
Thank you to all who advised me on this.
It does pay to challenge and not blindly accept the fine.