PCN given despite being a customer

twhitehousescat

13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at
locations where parking is not normally permitted they
must have the chance to read the terms and conditions
before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If,
having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but
choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with
a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be
bound by your parking contract.
13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally
permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable
grace period in addition to the parking event before
enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace
period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
13.2.a Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace
period in spaces designated to specific users for example
Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have
appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on display
for enforcement officer to inspect.
13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our
compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the
private car park after the parking contract has ended, before
you take enforcement action. If the location is one where
parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.


https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

became law/rules in order to stop what this mob are doing

you can quote from the above as cel are supposed to abide by those rules

Coupon-mad

NotCalledDan wrote: »

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

Well I have a chocolate hobnob at the moment with my tea!

NotCalledDan wrote: »

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?

Yes, the point of the template (even though I changed it again this week) is that PPCs recognise it and often just cancel - and if not, at least you will not have said who was driving and can then do a decent POPLA appeal.

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.

Must admit they've improved the words on the back which is annoying...!

The OP also has the Grace periods point for POPLA too.

NotCalledDan

Thank you everyone.

I will take the advice here and start with the template which i will submit closer to the 28 day limit.

I will provide updates to this thread and inform when it gets thrown out!

Fruitcake

Send it by whatever means it tells you to use on the PCN. Around day 26 is what we normally recommend.

As you have just discovered, there are two grace periods, each of ten minutes. We are seeing the scammers ignore this more and more.

A complaint to the BPA, DVLA, and your MP about this outrageous scam should be made every time this happens in my opinion.
The scammers had no business for issuing a bogus PCN within the grace periods, especially where unfit for purpose ANPR is used because it does not record parking time, only entry and exit.

The UK Gov has prohibited the use of ANPR in council and local authority car parks for this reason.

The_Deep

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

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

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 in the not too distant future.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting

NotCalledDan

Hi all

Unfortunately Civil Enforcement decided that despite the deficiencies in their adherence to the law, I (the registered keeper) look like a soft touch and have refused my appeal.

I have drafted an appeal to POPLA based on some of the previous cases found on here. I would be grateful for comments and suggestions before sending this off.

hXXpS://drive.google.com/open?id=1FkVxgxO4gHuJYZgg3wYWqwTMwoi5_IMZ

NotCalledDan

Bumping this as I think it was swamped during the busy period earlier. Apologies if this is against forum rules. Repeat of original text:

Hi all

Unfortunately Civil Enforcement decided that despite the deficiencies in their adherence to the law, I (the registered keeper) look like a soft touch and have refused my appeal.

I have drafted an appeal to POPLA based on some of the previous cases found on here. I would be grateful for comments and suggestions before sending this off.

hXXpS://drive.google.com/open?id=1FkVxgxO4gHuJYZgg3wYWqwTMwoi5_IMZ

KeithP

drive.google.com/file/d/1FkVxgxO4gHuJYZgg3wYWqwTMwoi5_IMZ/view

Earlier discussion in this thread deemed the PCN not compliant with POFA so that liability could not be transferred to the keeper.

I would therefore expect to see a point explaining how the NtK fails.

You do have point 5 "No Evidence of Period Parked" which goes a little way towards that, but you really need a point there that states "...and therefore liability for this parking event clearly cannot be transferred to the keeper".

That point should come before the 'failed to identify driver' point.

NotCalledDan

Thank you, much appreciated

NotCalledDan

Hi all

Reviving this as I am now at the claim form stage. POPLA appeal was refused as they claimed that my pdf was blank. Complete rubbish as I put hours into my appeal but at least it now forms the crux of my defence outlined below.

I have responded to the claim form only to acknowledge and inform that I will require the full 28 days to submit a response. Due to being on holiday when it was issued (9th Jan), this gives me around a week to return my defence.

I have redacted the identifiable information and not included links to evidence such as the image of the vehicle referenced in the defence. if these are required for people to give feedback let me know. Aside from that, aside from formatting, is there anything that needs to be added/removed?


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Car Parking Company (Claimant)

-and-

Moi (Defendant)

Defence
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay outside *RESTAURANT*, *STREET NAME*. As the vehicle occupants were paying customers of the *RESTAURANT* restaurant, the vehicle was parked in a valid manner.
3.The Notice To Keeper (NTK) sent was not POFA 2012 compliant due to an absence of essential information around the specified land being parked on (POFA 2012 para 7). The information contained within the NTK refers only to a car park on a specified road and does not give further details as to which this may be.
4. The signs at the car park do not contain information essential to allow for informed decision making to enter into a contract with the parking company (BPA CoP 13.1). All elements of compliance with GDPR regulations (GDPR Individual right to be informed) require navigation to an external website, of which there are 3 identified on the sign. The agreement that does outline the information necessitated by GDPR is over 4000 words long and no summary is provided.
5. BPA Code of Practice (2018) 13.4 states that grace periods should be set at a minimum of 10 minutes. Section 13.3 goes on to say that this grace period should be provided to the BPA if challenged. This indicates that there is either an expectation that the grace period is set for individual car parks or some methodology to provide this. It is put to the claimant to provide the grace period specific to the car park in question in order to prove the PCN claim of an overstay actually occurred.
6. Relating to points 4 and 5 above, it is the defendants position that a lack of essential information on the signs requires additional time to locate and review. This time should be reflected within the grace period allowed at the car park in question
7.BPA CoP (2018) requires that ‘Photographs used for evidence must be clear and legible’. It is put to the claimant that there is no clear and legible evidence of the vehicle in question exiting the car park using the ANPR system advertised as being in use. The provided evidence lacks any detail around the make, model, colour or vehicle registration number. Without evidence of the time of exit of the car park, it is impossible to state that the vehicle was parked longer than permitted.
8. Further to point 8, Claimant has provided no evidence of the regular maintenance or calibration of the ANPR system in use. The above point 7 indicates that the system does not function as intended and it is required of the Claimant to prove that the system meets the ongoing requirements set out in BPA CoP 21.3.
9. In addition, BPA CoP section 21.2 requires a quality check be undertaken prior to the issue of a PCN. The lack of any identifiable information on the evidence in question indicates this step has not been taken. It is required of the Claimant to prove that this mandatory check has occurred. Failure to have carried out this check will render the evidence void.
10. There is yet to be demonstrated by the claimant proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date