Late NTK, Unreadable Signage and False PCN

BTailor

Hi,

Firstly, the keeper has read up on the 'Newbies' inside and out and feel there is really strong case for 2 PCN's from Euro Parking Services but just want to know a few things and how much they should provide in addition to the template IPC reply kindly written by you guys.

PCN 1: 22nd Jan - driver didn't see the signs, came back and there was the PCN. Pictures were taken of the sign where the sun has bleached ALL of the writing on one of them off. Another sign says that it's permit holders only, immediately next to one that says pay and display with a website to use. Very confusing.

Question: Does the keeper write on the template that the driver has proof of the failure of large letters and prominence and attach those photos? (note: they must have seen the driver taking them as the signs were replaced a week later).

Question 2: the NTK was sent on day 58 (21st March) - you say this doesn't void it, but what does it do? so long as the driver is not named, they cant enforce anything?

Question 3: the images they sent the keeper were pictures of the car with NO pcn affixed - is this grounds for anything?

PCN 2: 20th Feb same location - An account had since been registered with parkonomy - the website on their signs. A full day of parking was paid for and received email invoice, further stating that that you DO NOT have to display a ticket, only to find a pcn there later saying that the driver hadn't displayed a ticket. NTK arrived 22nd March.

This has happened again on 15th March with the pcn, but yet to receive a NTK.

Question 1: Surely there is no need to state about large letters etc and simply state that there is electronic proof of payment?

Question 2: If this is going to happen every time the driver parks there, just because EPS's own system doesn't work are there any grounds to complain to a higher power or for harassment?

Thank you so much!

Fruitcake

Edit your post to remove information about who did what. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

Appeal each one separately using the template from the NEWBIES.

If the NTK failed the requirements of the POFA 2012, add a line to that effect.
You could add an image of the signs if you want and the relevant part of the IPC CoP that says signage must be clear. However, it is very unlikely any of this will do any good, so once you have appealed you will be in ignore mode unless you get a LBC.

Whatever you do, do not reveal the driver's identity. Never say who parked or who paid, and that includes posting here.

Scammers monitor these fora.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

BTailor

Noted. thanks - I suppose those pics will come in handy if ever it gets to summons, which sounds doubtful.

Fingers crossed then.

Coupon-mad

There will be no 'summons' because it's not a criminal matter!

A claim from Gladstones is VERY likely this year.

BTailor

I just meant Court communications/orders - forgive me, not all of us are lingo savvy.

Redx

we agree that people are not lingo savvy, so dont use any "lingo" at all unless you know it is 100% accurate, seeing as these are legal matters and words matter

the words "fine" , "summons" , "penalty" etc should not be used

these pcn,s are "invoices" and the correct court papers acronym is MCOL , which is easily googled and applies to civil court claims, be they plumbers invoices , wanting a refund for a late flight or private parking charge notices

NEVER make up a word to describe something you have little or no knowledge of

I would be very annoyed if somebody told me that my granchild had ebola when it was actually measles and they then claimed they had little or no medical knowledge

good luck

Coupon-mad

BTailor wrote: »

I just meant Court communications/orders - forgive me, not all of us are lingo savvy.

No problem, don't take the correction personally. Many newbies say what you said.

Not everyone is as pedantic as us regulars but you'll appreciate our eye for detail, accuracy, and ability to sniff out the issues for defence (and how to tear apart what might look to you like a strong/detailed Claimant's witness statement) when you need us!

Loadsofchildren123

A Claim Form used to be called a summons in the lower courts I think (Writs in the High Court), hence why people still call them that.

BTailor

Update:

I the keeper have just received the LBCA for 'PCN 2' imposed on 20/2/2018.

This is the PCN where the driver has emailed proof, confirmation and invoice for paying for a full day of parking (08:45 through to 23:45) and the PCN was issued mid-morning.

On advice of this thread, the standard template response was emailed by me the keeper on 3/4/18 to the NTK that was received 22/2/18.

The LBCA states that I have failed to provide valid reason for non-payment, however makes no reference to my email. The main points of the letter are:

"The debt relates to the parking charge(s) detailed above for which you are liable. We have previously provided you with the full details of this charge as per PCN and/or NT Driver/Keeper that have been served on you. We intend to rely on these in the event of Court Action.

We refer you to the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules and in particular paragraph 13-16 of the same, which deals with the Court's powers to impose sanctions for any failure to comply.

We now require you to pay the full amount within 14 days. Alternatively, please provide an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and full written respomse within 14 days of this letter. Your response should provide your full account of the circumstances that led to the charge being imposed and if it was not you driving....

...unless you provide a satisfactory response, we will instruct our solicitors (Gladstones) to commence proceedings against you..."

It hasn't scared me as I the keeper have the confirmation invoice from the driver for that day of parking, but what are my next steps please? I am half tempted to allow them to take this to court just so I can cost them the time, effort and court costs of it.

Many thanks everyone!

Quentin

That doesn't look a lbcca.

It looks a debt collecting attempt

A proper lbcca will include forms to return ( don't!), You have to be given 30 days to pay.

So you can ignore this.

(If you are sure it's a lbcca then see #2 in the Newbies FAQ thread for advice on how to respond)