Advise needed to fight a non-POFA unscrupulous PCN !

madmc

Received a Parking Charge Notice from a company called Select Parking (Select Security Ltd. t/a Select Parking, company no 10706428)

1. Parking Charge - Date and Time of Issue: 20th April.
2. Date PCN received: 11th July (date posted 9th July)
3. PCN received 81 days (!) after the alleged breach by post.
4. Name & address of the site: A set of industrial units in Langley SL3. But, this is NOT where the car was actually parked. The car was parked away from the industrial units on unmarked & unsigned space by the main road which is not part of any industrial unit. There was NO signage indicate parking restriction in place on the day of parking .
5. No evidence of parking breach provided (No ANPR images, pictures, no time stamps etc). Does not say how the breach was recorded. No mention of APNR. No windscreen ticket.
6. There is no information of what time the breach occurred. Period of Parking- from N/A, To N/A

Select Parking is notoriously known for unscrupulous practices. Confident they will reject any appeals and refer to IAS which as we understand is a complete waste of time.

How do we fight this please?

madmc

Have another concern about the same company planting signs after parking. I'm not allowed to post links. If interested please follow

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=120979

soolin

Start by reading the newbies sticky thread, that will point you in the right direction.

Coupon-mad

Well, as they are such small fry, you might like to take this one (rare I say this!) to the IAS after all and test them. Can the keeper provide the kangaroo court of IAS with proof of where they were, to establish on the balance of probabilities that they cannot possibly have been driving because they were elsewhere?

madmc

Absolutely, the RK was 25 miles away from the place of alleged incident taking the DD to swimming lessons


Cant believe how unscrupulous these guys can be !!!

Umkomaas

Why not send them a SAR-bomb so they know they're into this up to their necks. Play with fire, get burned by fire! It will take them days to deal with it - and they have to by law!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5849784/june-2018-start-of-the-new-ppc-and-dvla-fightback-gdpr-related

madmc

Will happily do everything I can so that no others go through the pain of dealing with these cowboys.



I've read the sticky and confident of dealing with POPLA members such as PE. These IPC affiliated cowboys seem to just ignore PoFA rules and harass everyone while scratching each others back with so called independent appeals procedure which is anything but.

Coupon-mad

madmc wrote: »

Absolutely, the RK was 25 miles away from the place of alleged incident taking the DD to swimming lessons

The only way to prove that would be:

- a witness statement from the swimming baths swimming trainer who saw you

or

- if you have a Smart Phone that's recorded your Google location?

I can't stress enough, on the odd occasion an IAS appeal is worth trying, you MUST prove absolutely everything, to the nth degree (and still might lose, but so what, no-one would pay anyway!).

madmc

Will ask the swimming trainer if they can provide us with evidence that DD attended lessons on that day. Guess this will be RK's defense?


Also, the PCN does not state a time of breach, nor provides any photo evidence with time stamps. The reason they mention the industrial units as alleged place of parking is because that place is clearly sign posted not to park (how nice of them to chose a place in their favour :mad:) whereas the car was actually parked far away in an unsigned place out of the industrial estate.

Coupon-mad

Will ask the swimming trainer if they can provide us with evidence that DD attended lessons on that day. Guess this will be RK's defense?

No you are missing the point. This is straightforward, it is YOU who you have to place; they won't care where a child was, obviously anyone could have taken a child to swimming practice.

I said 'from the swimming trainer WHO SAW YOU'.

beamerguy

I agree with coupon-mad

"Can the keeper provide the kangaroo court of IAS with proof of where they were, to establish on the balance of probabilities that they cannot possibly have been driving because they were elsewhere?"

Let's see what the IAS says. Will they agree or reject
whereby they can set in motion the incompetent
Gladstones solicitors to continue the scam

Love to be a fly on the wall in the offices of the IAS/Gladstones
or should I say a fly jumping from one desk to another