PCN given despite being a customer

NotCalledDan

I am the registered keeper for a vehicle parked at a CE controlled car park while visiting a Pizza Hut () as a customer on 4/11/18. Time spent there was 2hrs 12 mins according to the PCN that was issued on 8/11/18.

The signage in the car park stated that arrivals between 7am and 6pm can park for 2 hours, those entering 6pm to midnight get 3 free hours and that parking is prohibited at other times. The sign further states that by exceeding this, ‘you agree to pay £100’ and ‘To deter abuse of this car park, these terms are in effect 24hrs per day’. There are multiple sign around the car park including one near the entrance to the store. These signs are attached to lampposts though several were not working on the day in question.

Within the store itself, there are printed notices reminding of the 2hr limit that is not controlled by Pizza Hut and to let the staff know if you will exceed this as they will add your VRN to a whitelist for the day.

Upon receiving the PCN, the manager of Pizza Hut was called and stated that they did not have a record of the VRN being given to them for whitelist inclusion and that they are unable to cancel the charge. They will however provide any appeal to CE with confirmation that I was a customer for the time stated and had permission to park there.

I believe the PCN received contained all the requirements for POFA 2012 including detail on the reverse relating to keeper liability after 28 days.

As the keeper, I am yet to contact CE to contest the charge and would like some advice on what the core of my complaint should be.

As there was implied permission granted at the time of parking and then explicit permission from the manager once the PCN was sent, should the challenge be of the validity of the contract CE hold with Pizza Hut as the leaseholders?


I have reviewed a large amount of information from this site, Parking Pranksters and other and I am not sure there are any procedural errors made in the content and delivery of the PCN. I am unsure whether the parking conditions apply given the driver was using the leaseholders car park for their services only. I am also unsure as to whether the error on the behalf of Pizza Hut in not putting the name of the driver on the whitelist should render this issue moot.

I will escalate my issue to Pizza Hut corporate services who will hopefully request CE cancel the charge. I would like to draft a response to CE (though not send until towards the end of the 28 days) however to ensure that if I send it and then PH try to cancel it, CE do not continue as I have inadvertently taken responsibility for paying.

hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=1mcnZrgv0E4unXeQteuwc6wgdTTTrcSew

hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=1SFkFvfVzgT3pkJOUxrTj9XSwxd4HMF_q

Thanks

NotDan

KeithP

I would suggest that you have given enough information for CEL to uniquely identify your incident.

By editing your post to delete your precise timings things will be much more vague.

The PPCs are known to trawl these forums and can try and use your posts against you.


Send the blue template appeal that has already been written for you in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Send it unchanged - no additions or alterations necessary.

Send it as the keeper.

Coupon-mad

I believe the PCN received contained all the requirements for POFA 2012 including detail on the reverse relating to keeper liability after 28 days.

Do you?

I have never in 10 years seen a POFA-compliant NTK from Civil Enforcement. Show us!

Front & back images hosted in Dropbox, please (redact your name/address & VRN & PCN number from it).

YOU CAN POST A LINK TO DROPBOX IF YOU BREAK THE LINK (change http to hxxp).

NotCalledDan

Thank you for challenging me on that! Links have been added to the original post as well as removal of identifiable info

Fruitcake

NotCalledDan wrote: »

Thank you for challenging me on that! Links have been added to the original post as well as removal of identifiable info

Not entirely.

"Someone" had implied permission at the time of parking. It might be a tenuous link, but we know that scammers take screen grabs from here, and they won't hesitate to use them to harass a motorist and use them in court if it gets that far. A judge less clued up about these scams might make an assumption from that one line, and anything else the scammers might highlight from subsequent posts.

I suggest you only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, the latter having been an occupant of the car, and The Driver being the one who had implied permission for The Keeper's car to be there. Don't use the definite article.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1phcgTIT0Fo3jrZ0BbwkDy2dkQae38akQ

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SFkFvfVzgT3pkJOUxrTj9XSwxd4HMF_q

Not POFA compliant.

Please rotate your first image so we don't all end up with neck problems.

NotCalledDan

Thank you Fruitcake, I have now sanitised the post and replaced with reference to driver and keeper. I have also made amendments to prevent physio appointments being needed by those helping me!

I am a complete novice but did try to understand the POFA guidelines enough to see if the PCN met the standards. Can you explain how the PCN is not compliant please?

twhitehousescat

Time spent there was 2hrs 12 mins according to the PCN that was issued on 8/11/18.

and this was by automated camera ?

confirm 2hrs 12 mins?

NotCalledDan

Correct on both points twhitehousecat.

Also, to clarify, there was no notice left on the windscreen, just the PCN through to post to the keeper

Fruitcake

NotCalledDan wrote: »

Thank you Fruitcake, I have now sanitised the post and replaced with reference to driver and keeper. I have also made amendments to prevent physio appointments being needed by those helping me!

I am a complete novice but did try to understand the POFA guidelines enough to see if the PCN met the standards. Can you explain how the PCN is not compliant please?

Compare the wording of the PCN (which since it was sent to The Keeper, is in fact a NTK) to Para 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, (linked from the NEWBIES I think).

The NTK must state ALL the requirements included in that section of the Act in order to transfer liability to The Keeper. It doesn't.
Go through the relevant parts of The POFA line by line to see where they have failed. This will form part of your appeal.

You will need at least one brew and some biccies to do this.

twhitehousescat

the parking co , have not stated that you PARKED for 2 hrs 12mins , by using automated cameras at entry/exit they have stated ON LAND for 2hrs 12mins

the PPC offer 2 hs parking , however the code of practice states there are grace periods , both at the start (in order to find place and read signage) and at the end to vacate property

5-10 mins is not unusual to find place , read signage and get a ticket if needed , and the laws (?) state 10 mins to vacate

the parking Co are having 2 bites of the cherry , but they are wrong

they are using cameras to record entry /exit and applying those to time parked

NotCalledDan

Fruitcake: I have been over the newbies post and cannot find any mention of forum approved biscuits. Do you have any recommendations?

Twhitehousecat: thank you for that explanation, I hadn't thought of it in that respect. i had looked into the 10 mins grace period and could only find reference to it as a courtesy made by councils when dealing with their own issued fines, I could not see any reference to it in law.

Given the above points, does KeithP's advice to send the blue template appeal without amendments and only use these points if parking co in question take this further?