Parking Charges Limited

dandy-candy

A letter has come for my husband which looks a bit odd. It’s headed Parking Charge Notice and at first glance I thought it was a council one but then I noticed at the side top it says PCL and in small letters Parking Charge Limited. It’s for the business van and it says location of incident is a golf club but gives no address for the location.

The photos are 2 of the number plate and 2 virtually black distant shots where I can just make out headlights (black and white pics taken at night). There’s no link to look at the photos online to get a better view or see who is driving. It says the parking was recorded by an approved ANPR device.

It says £100 due or £60 if we pay within 14 days of issue. It says the incident was on 1st Jan and the letter is dated 13 Jan but only arrived today (18 Jan)

It also says that if he doesn’t pay or tell them the name and address of who was driving they have the right to recover the money from him and additional charges necessary.

Is this legitimate?

Le_Kirk

Was the van parked at the location at the golf club on that day and does the golf club have a company to "manage" the parking? If so, it is probably legitimate.

dandy-candy

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Was the van parked at the location at the golf club on that day and does the golf club have a company to "manage" the parking? If so, it is probably legitimate.

Not to his knowledge, he doesn’t play golf and i don’t think anyone else at work with access to the van does either. I don’t know if the place has a company that deals with parking because we don’t even know the place! I’m not sure how we are supposed to identify the driver from the photos.

Le_Kirk

You don't identify the driver from the photos, you identify the vehicle as it would be ANPR. Is the VRM (Reg No) correct for the vehicle you own? Could it be a case of ANPR misread?

dandy-candy

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You don't identify the driver from the photos, you identify the vehicle as it would be ANPR. Is the VRM (Reg No) correct for the vehicle you own? Could it be a case of ANPR misread?

Possibly, it is rather fuzzy. Thanks for the suggestion.

Ralph-y

does the car have any tracking ?


do any / all potential drivers have smart phones as in google maps ?


this is the newbie thread which will be your point of reference should this progress any further


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou


Ralph:cool:

twhitehousescat

ANPR photos are not a man with a camera , they are Pole (or simular) mounted things ghat recognise and can gather car VRNs , hence the fuzzyness of the rest of pic

they are also notorious for false reads

"It says £100 due or £60 if we pay within 14 days of issue. It says the incident was on 1st Jan and the letter is dated 13 Jan but only arrived today (18 Jan)

It also says that if he doesn’t pay or tell them the name and address of who was driving they have the right to recover the money from him and additional charges necessary."


not quite the truth , with the letter taking over 14 days to be DELIVERED they have failed to comply with the "law" , ie the POFa , and in fact have NOT got the right to harass the owner/keeper , they need to obtain there income from the driver at the time

Parket ticketing ltd , how the jell can this be a parking co , its a bloody company set up TO issue tickets , not to provide a parking service

Coupon-mad

dandy-candy wrote: »

A letter has come for my husband which looks a bit odd. It’s headed Parking Charge Notice and at first glance I thought it was a council one but then I noticed at the side top it says PCL and in small letters Parking Charge Limited. It’s for the business van and it says location of incident is a golf club but gives no address for the location.

The photos are 2 of the number plate and 2 virtually black distant shots where I can just make out headlights (black and white pics taken at night). There’s no link to look at the photos online to get a better view or see who is driving. It says the parking was recorded by an approved ANPR device.

It says £100 due or £60 if we pay within 14 days of issue. It says the incident was on 1st Jan and the letter is dated 13 Jan but only arrived today (18 Jan)

It also says that if he doesn’t pay or tell them the name and address of who was driving they have the right to recover the money from him and additional charges necessary.

Is this legitimate?

Is he the registered keeper on the logbook, or a company? His company he owns?

If so then 'the company' replies and asks for evidence including the location to be clarified, and asks if PCL are relying on the POFA 2012.

Suggest that PCL have failed to follow the POFA (vaguely say their NTK fails to use the required wording).

And therefore, the company cannot be liable because at a golf club that the company do not know, any driver was certainly not acting on an agency basis 'on behalf of' the company, on any related business. this the matter would be for the driver but if the scammers cannot identify him/her then they must cancel this charge.

If he is the rk as an individual person, then the response should be similar but without the 'company' references.

We assume before you posted, you did read:

NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

If not, please do because that's where we tell people how to appeal & win and explains about the POFA, with a link to the Act. My signature tells you where to click back, just 2 clicks.

Fruitcake

dandy-candy wrote: »

Not to his knowledge, he doesn’t play golf and i don’t think anyone else at work with access to the van does either. I don’t know if the place has a company that deals with parking because we don’t even know the place! I’m not sure how we are supposed to identify the driver from the photos.

It is not your job to identify the driver. It is the scammer's job to prove it. Unless the vehicle was being used without your permission, don't give the scammers any aid in identifying the person behind the wheel.

The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not, whoever it might be.

Start by reading the sticky thread for NEWBIES, then appeal the PCN using the template in blue you will find there in post 1. Send it unaltered from The Keeper.

This will give you more time to find out what is really gong on.

If however you can determine that it is not your company van, but an incorrect read of the known to be unfit for purpose ANPR system, then complain to the DVLA and the BPA about this breach of your personal data, and send a copy to the scammers as well.

Send an SAR to the scammers asking to see all personal data held by them about the keeper including any images. The process to do this can also be found in the NEWIBIES.

Whatever else you do, please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

The_Deep

It it looks like a scam, etc.

Complain to your MP as It is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), 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.

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.