PCN @ Brentwood Station full payment made before noticing I had a ticket

atanks

Here is the link hope it works...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5ew70b3gu6u0rw/LU%20Full%20Contract.pdf?dl=0

Does anyone else have any further advice in response, should I include the picture of the signage regarding 10 minutes within parking?

Coupon-mad

You can't attach pictures to your comments.

Use the Portal, bullet points only.

I read just over half of that Contract before my eyes glazed over, and in the second half about enforcement, it says that NCP have to issue a warning called a 'Customer Notice' for a first offence*. LU then repeat that they reserve the right to require that a PCN is not issued for a first offence, only a 'CN' to educate the customer and collect the missed tariff.

I know what you are thinking - you had an earlier PCN than this one...yep.

But POPLA don't know that, do they?

So why not point out the clause 2(something) that says that NCP must issue a 'Customer Notice' NOT a PCN for a first ''offence'' and ''look POPLA, they have issued a PCN and have not evidenced any previous ''offence''...

Just make that bare assertion, quoting the right bit if the landowner contract.

Also state that the definition of 'Services' is detailed, and only talks about putting up signs/cleaning, marking lines, maintaining the site and collecting tariffs from machines. All just agency jobs any cleaning contractor might do. Even in the 'enforcement' section there is nothing that grants NCP the right to take legal action against a driver.

It ends at 'debt collection stage' (and requires NCP to collect at least 60% of parking charges) which suggests that LU maintain control of enforcing the other 40% or less (any uncollected monies). This indicates that NCP only have the right to undertake pre-action correspondence. Nothing says otherwise, so the contract fails the BPA CoP para 7 requirements, because they are neither the 'creditor' nor are they the litigator under this contract, where TFL maintain overarching control.


*us regulars must remember this for future LU/NCP cases. No right to issue a PCN!

atanks

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can't attach pictures to your comments.

Use the Portal, bullet points only.

I read just over half of that Contract before my eyes glazed over, and in the second half about enforcement, it says that NCP have to issue a warning called a 'Customer Notice' for a first offence*. LU then repeat that they reserve the right to require that a PCN is not issued for a first offence, only a 'CN' to educate the customer and collect the missed tariff.

I know what you are thinking - you had an earlier PCN than this one...yep.

But POPLA don't know that, do they?

So why not point out the clause 2(something) that says that NCP must issue a 'Customer Notice' NOT a PCN for a first ''offence'' and ''look POPLA, they have issued a PCN and have not evidenced any previous ''offence''...

Just make that bare assertion, quoting the right bit if the landowner contract.

Is this the right section and Sufficient?
On Page 88 of the LU, Contract Section 2.3.1 General enforcement; It states “Issuing either a Customer Notice (for first time offences) or PCN to customer by post;”

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Also state that the definition of 'Services' is detailed, and only talks about putting up signs/cleaning, marking lines, maintaining the site and collecting tariffs from machines. All just agency jobs any cleaning contractor might do. Even in the 'enforcement' section there is nothing that grants NCP the right to take legal action against a driver.

Not sure if this is the same section as below?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It ends at 'debt collection stage' (and requires NCP to collect at least 60% of parking charges) which suggests that LU maintain control of enforcing the other 40% or less (any uncollected monies). This indicates that NCP only have the right to undertake pre-action correspondence. Nothing says otherwise, so the contract fails the BPA CoP para 7 requirements, because they are neither the 'creditor' nor are they the litigator under this contract, where TFL maintain overarching control.

Is this on page 88, section 2.3.2 – PCN recovery rate?

Also, the signage wording from the original evidence photo they sent me is below
“You must pay your parking session 10 minutes after entering the car park using either the payment kiosks or the pay by phone service.”

Coupon-mad

Is this on page 88, section 2.3.2 – PCN recovery rate?

Sorry, I never want to read that LU document again!

atanks

I know its annoying it is a scanned version rather than a copy as would of been easier to find points by search via key words!

atanks

If anyone could give this a once over before this evening where I shall submit these comments to NCP's reply that would be fantastic.. if not I am still very grateful for all the help you have given me!

The appellant (NAME) stated in their initial appeal “I have paid for my duration” and subsequently “the warden has given me a PCN 20 minutes after parking” I conclude the appellant has stated they were in fact the driver on the date of event.

This is still an assumption NCP have no factual evidence that I was the driver. This appeal was made by me as the owner and consumer. Hence any reference to myself.

According to the Cashless parking database the parking session was purchased after the PCN was issued. We appreciate the motorist paid for a parking session however; the parking session must be in place before leaving the vehicle in the car park. When the Parking Attendant checked the vehicle there was no valid payment for parking. I have included the customer’s Cashless payment which was made after the PCN was issued. When the appellant paid by phone, the parking session they paid for covered them from the time of payment until the paid parking session expires and therefore cannot be applied retrospectively. At the time the PCN was issued, they had no valid payment in place and hence the PCN was issued correctly. Should NCP allow motorists to pay for their parking session retrospectively, the operator is leaving the cashless payment system open to abuse as some motorists would only pay for a parking session, on returning to their vehicle and finding a parking charge notice already issued. This would leave the operator open to non-payment being made on days when no parking charge notice is issued to the vehicle which would not be financially viable.

On this occasion payment was made and clearly found by NCP so the need to supply PCN was based on financial viability is again not relevant. I may add the fee at this specific car park is a flat fee for 24 hour period hence there is no change in rate depending on time of arrival, which furthermore negates this argument.

For the avoidance of doubt, if you choose to pay the parking tariff by using the Pay by Mobile service, the payment must be made at the time of parking your vehicle in the Car Park and in any event, before you leave your vehicle in the Car Park. 10b) Pay by Mobile – you must register an account and use the pay by mobile service provided by the relevant service provider in accordance with its terms and conditions (Information is available at http://www.ncp.co.uk) and then (Upon parking in the car park and before leaving your vehicle in the car park) purchase the amount of time for which you would like to park.

In reply Page 12 of “4362118926 part 2” as you can see even though NCP have attached an enlarged image of this sign the mentioned T&C’s are barely visible. Including this text which negates any argument of payment of parking in advance. “You must pay your parking session 10 minutes after entering the car park using either the payment kiosks or the pay by phone service.” It does not reference a time frame for payment via there online payment services via the dash website.

It is the responsibility of every motorist to observe and comply with the Terms and Conditions our facilities are provided and managed under and by leaving the vehicle the appellant indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted that a PCN would be issued for noncompliance of the displayed conditions. To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the Notice. POPLA state decisions will be based on finding of fact; the facts are that the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed Terms and Conditions and NCP trust that POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this appeal.

Finally based on my above replies NCP have not given a factual response in reference to this PCN and merely cast assumptions on who was driving and misinformed POPLA and myself regarding their T&C’s signage. I also noticed within the LU contract attached an interesting pont. It says that NCP have to issue a warning called a 'Customer Notice' for a first offence*. LU then repeat that they reserve the right to require that a PCN is not issued for a first offence, only a 'CN' to educate the customer and collect the missed tariff. The exact wording and reference point is as follows; On Page 88 of the LU, Contract Section 2.3.1 General enforcement; It states “Issuing either a Customer Notice (for first time offences) or PCN to customer by post;”

Lastly, reading through the LU contract it states that the definition of 'Services' is detailed, and only talks about putting up signs/cleaning, marking lines, maintaining the site and collecting tariffs from machines. All just agency jobs any cleaning contractor might do. Even in the 'enforcement' section there is nothing that grants NCP the right to take legal action against a driver.

Coupon-mad

You can't put even half that in as comments.

You only have 2000 characters! I did give you a clue not to write War & Peace:

Use the Portal, bullet points only.

atanks

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can't put even half that in as comments.

You only have 2000 characters! I did give you a clue not to write War & Peace:

I have only included the quotes on this post for context:)

Coupon-mad

You are a bit over, 2018 characters according to an online character count.

waamo

Yup. Make it shorter and snappier. There is a fair bit of waffle in there.

I would also edit out your name that you have left in.