Arena Shopping Park Coventry - Park Watch

BritishLion

Hi all,

After successfully challenging no less than three extortion attempts thanks to this forum a few years ago for my wife an I, I am now back to try and challenge a PCN received by my mother a few days ago, as the registered keeper, relating to the Arena Shopping Park in Coventry, delivered by Park Watch (or Defence Systems Limited T/A Park Watch).

Alleged offence: Parking in a disable bay and not clearly displaying a blue badge.

The driver denies the allegations.

First things first, I have already submitted a letter to Arena Shopping Park via their online contact form. I'll add the letter at the bottom of this.

I'm now on to the appeal to Park Watch. There was no PCN on the window, so this letter is the first time it has come to light. I am going to give it a couple of days for the Arena Shopping Park to reply before sending the formal appeal in which will be the template letter provided Newbies post. There is a point in there though which i'm hoping someone can clarify. Its in the dig deeper section...

Want to dig deeper? Check the compliance of your Notice to Keeper, if the PPC is citing 'keeper liability' under the POFA. Here's a link to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 which applies in England/Wales only (look for the words shown in paragraph 8 if it's a 'windscreen ticket followed by a NTK', or the words in paragraph 9 if it's a postal PCN only):

[/FONT]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

If the NTK arrives late, this does not make the PCN 'void' but it means there is 'no keeper liability' possible.

If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.

Or, the NTK must arrive with you between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen PCN.

Some firms (e.g. Civil Enforcement, Highview, Smart Parking and some small PPCs) don't even bother with POFA 2012 wording so the keeper is not liable if you point that out to POPLA.

According to the above, as there was no windscreen ticket, the postal PCN should have arrived within 14 days of a date of issue. In this case the PCN was dated 33 days after the issue date. The PCN does quote paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the PoFA.

The question I have is, the car is provided by Motobility, so does this have any effect on the time it would take the postal PCN to reach the registered keeper? From what I have read, the person on the V5 of a Motobility car is the Motobility customer, i.e. the person who actually has the car.

Assuming there was no reason for the delay in the PCN and Park Watch have sent it out late, what does this actually mean?

Thanks in advance for your help!

BritishLion

For reference, here is the letter i've sent to Arena Parking...

Hello,
I write to you on behalf on my 72 year old disabled mother who as the registered keeper of the vehicle, received a parking charge notice from a company called Park Watch for allegedly not displaying a blue badge while parked in a disabled bay on the xx xxxxxxx 2018 at the Arena Shopping Park in Coventry.

The letter, as I am sure you are already aware is very threatening in nature. Despite no notice being attached to the car at the time of the alleged infringement, or any letter being received prior to this one, the letter states it is a reminder letter and the amount of £100 is now overdue. This is causing my mother untold stress and worry.

At this point, I would like to confirm the driver of the vehicle at the time fully denies the alleged infringement. The letter does not contain any supporting evidence and is worded to scare people into paying the extortionate charges of which there are some serious concerns around the legality of them.

It is my understanding you are the management company for the Arena Shopping Park and therefore responsible for bringing Park Watch in to manage parking. I am disgusted that a shopping centre such as yours allows a private parking company, such a Park Watch, to operate at your shopping park when it is well documented they use a number of underhand and threatening tactics such as the one witnessed in the letter today, to extort huge sums of money from people who have taken the time to visit and spend money at your shopping centre. How it can be justified to attempt to extort £100 from shoppers for alleged parking infringements beggars belief.

The reason for my mothers visit that day was to spend money at the following shops:-
New Look
Boots
Tesco

As its been so long since the parking charge notice was allegedly issued, she no longer has any receipts, but she can evidence her spend at the stores via bank statements. She can also provide a copy of her blue badge of which she has now been a holder for 12 years.

I will now be taking the following action relating to the penalty charge notice:-

1. Commencing the long and arduous formal appeals process, starting with Park Watch first and ending in court action if required. The initial appeal will be lodged within 28 days from the 12th December.

2. Contacting my local MP regarding the matter.

3. Contacting the Coventry Telegraph regarding the matter.

I ask that you request Park Watch revoke the parking charge notice with immediate effect to prevent any further stress and worry being placed on a disabled pensioner, and to also stop the need for what will be a very long drawn out and time consuming appeals process.

If you do not have the power to revoke the parking charge notice, can I please ask you to forward me the details of the person who does so I can contact them directly. If you do have the power to revoke the parking charge but refuse to do so, could you please provide me with the name and contact details of the most senior person within your organisation.

For reference, the details of the parking charge notice are:-

Reference Number: xxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxx
Issue Date: xxxxxx 2018
Issue Time: xx:xx

I hope we can bring this matter to a very swift conclusion.

Yours sincerely,

Guys_Dad

At the DVLA, who is the registered keeper? If it is your mother, you are right. If Motability, then the PPC would have contacted them to see who the hirer/keeper was and the 14 days does not apply to your mother.

You need to see the photographic evidence too.

BritishLion

Hi Guys Dad, thanks for replying. I have checked, the owner of the car is the registered keeper with the DVLA, not Motobility.

On that basis then the 14 day rule applies. Does this now put us in a stronger position? I will be appealing using the standard template which requests the photographic evidence (assuming the shopping centre did not cancel the charge before).

Thanks,

BL

Guys_Dad

14 day rule applies and I would appeal on that point alone.

BritishLion

Thanks Guys Dad.

Could someone please confirm if this is the first PCN letter? The driver has stated there was no yellow ticket on the car at the time, but this letter states the PCN was issued on the date of the alleged infringement. I also note there is no option to pay a reduced sum within 14 days. Reading other posts, I also see that people have mentioned they did have a ticket on the car.

Link to letter... https://postimg.cc/gallery/gpaovl5a/

If there was a ticket on the car, does that change the approach or does the registered keeper still appeal using the standard template in the newbies section?

Thanks,

BL

Umkomaas

Unreadable. Zooming just further blurs the images.

Try hosting on tinypic, imgur or Dropbox, then copy and post the url here please.

BritishLion

I've replaced the images in the post with a link to the picutre hosting site, is that any better?

Johno100

My money is on this being a 'ghost ticket'.

If Park Watch are alleging a disabled bay infraction it would have to be evidenced by fairly close-up photos of the windscreen and thus logically a windscreen ticket.

The_Deep

Was the driver or any passenger the holder of a BB? If so, has the PPC been iformed? If so, continuing to pursue this charge may now/or in the future be an offence under the EA 2010. Read about reasonable adjustments for protected characteristics here

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/duty-to-make-reasonable-adjustments-for-disabled-people/

and complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Umkomaas

It seems to be the Notice to Keeper - we can't tell any more than you can if it's the 'first' letter - so use the initial appeal template from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1.

If the charge is 'Parking in a Disabled Bay Not Clearly Displaying a Blue Badge' then this has to be a 'warden issued' ticket (it can't possibly be a ANPR ticket). Whether or not a ticket was applied to the windscreen is neither here nor there at the moment. The NtK can only be issued (in the post) to the keeper after day 28 - which they appear to have done.

So this has been served within the timescale for a windscreen ticket, not an ANPR one. BUT - while they have produced the PoFA warning paragraph in their NtK, they've quoted the incorrect paragraph. Para 9 relates to ANPR/camera captured parking infringements, so they're a bit stuffed. If they argue that it was really ANPR/camera captured after all (hence Par 9), they're too late issuing (33 days) - stuffed too!

But all of this will be best putting to POPLA, so for now, basic initial appeal from the registered keeper (you can do the work, but in the RK's name only). Please don't try adding anything to that appeal.

The_Deep

Is nothing going to be said about a BB? This surely will lead to the suspicion that the driver did not have one.