Regarding PCN Admin Centre Parking Fine

MistyZ

rachyface wrote: »

Thank you guys. I’ve removed al sensitive information. Do you think we have enough evidence to confess this?

I'm still seeing what appears to be your full name at least 2 times! As well as your father's name. Please edit before you do anything else, the parking companies do lurk here.

MistyZ

Well, having started off so nice, there's only one way to go if you're to persevere with a landowner complaint.

3 hours 44 minutes does seem like a long time. However, as was pointed out in one of the letters you wrote, your father has severe spinal damage. I'm not sure how long it takes a person with spinal damage to go shopping for clothes in Matalan and make an appointment with the vet in Pets at Home, but none of that would have been done at a trot, that's for sure.

I would compose a much more hard hitting letter, perhaps not to the same person though. Who is this character?

Do not ask for sympathy or understanding, just educate. And then insist that the charge be cancelled. Off the top of my head, I'd go with something like this:

- Driver parked in good faith, new parking arrangements not clear at all (elaborate much more
clearly than in previous complaints)
- Severely disabled person (explain nature and effects of the disability clearly again)
- While progress was extremely slow and painful and the person had to take their time,
they actually enjoyed the visit to x shops
- They did x,y & z (don't mention that no purchases made though mention how much will be
spent pruning the dog at the appointment made on that occasion)
- Reiterate that there was no intention whatsoever of avoiding payment. It is now fully
understood that greater care will need to be taken in the future
- Insist that this unfair and extremely unfortunate charge be cancelled, it is disproportionate
and punitive, imposed by people who have absolutely no idea how difficult it can be for
very disabled people and their families to access and enjoy facilities such as those offered
at the retail park

Ah! Just noticed that you complained to customer services. You definitely need to aim higher. As several stores were visited it might best to email the landowner or land management company responsible for all the stores. But don't contact anyone below the level of Store Manager (and the Store Managers might be a good source for name of landowner).

Coupon-mad

Severely disabled person (explain nature and effects of the disability clearly again)

And use these words:

The Equality Act 2010 creates a duty upon service providers - retailers/parking companies etc., to make 'reasonable adjustments' of all rigid policies (including adjusting time limits, not just removing physical barriers).

Time limits MUST have the potential to be extended for the disabled population at large. Legally, there must be flexibility where a victim of a PCN identifies that an occupant of the car as 'protected characteristics' that required more time for day to day tasks, to allow fair access to the facility.

Quite simply, any PCN issued in these circumstances is unlawful and must be cancelled.

Remind the landowner that they are legally liable for the discriminatory conduct of their parking agent and that they currently stand in breach of the EA and what are they going to do, to right that legal wrong?

rachyface

Thanks for people like you.
I know I may have started off blind - But it was only because well, I really was and it truly is a minefield if you don't know where to start and of course a 'panic head' doesn't help...

Is it worth going down the route of POPLA or going to the Landowner first and sending him a letter detailing my father's condition as advised?

Thank you once again for everyone's brilliant brains, I really feel like we can fight this.

rachyface

Also is it worth noting as I've just skimmed through your NEWBIES thread that on our letters it does NOT mention anything regarding POFA? only POPLA and that is through email not a physical copy.

This is the letter (Not including sensitive info)

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”). We have carefully considered your appeal however after full consideration of all details pertaining to this matter; the appeal has been rejected as it is the driver’s responsibility to understand and adhere to the terms and conditions when parking on private land. From the photographic evidence available to view at ipaymypcn you can see that the vehicle is parked in breach of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage approved by the British Parking Association (BPA) and due to this the PCN has been issued correctly.

To warrant parking on this site a purchase does not have to be made for vehicles to park, however, if purchases are made then there can be concessions for an overstay. The signage on site clearly states “2 hour maximum stay customer car park only” it does not state any state any different circumstances for blue badge holders, and as a blue badge holder you have stated you understand on private land you must follow the terms and conditions. By the vehicle being on site for over 3 hours and 44 minutes this is a breach of the terms and conditions and as already advised the PCN has been issued correctly.

For your further information, in the case of ParkingEye Limited –v- Beavis the court of appeal unambiguously clarified the common law's position on both the nature and enforceability of parking charges.

It is now clear that a parking charge having the predominant purpose or intention to deter is not sufficient in itself to invalidate the charge so long as it is not extravagant and unconscionable; thus this parking charge is fully enforceable under the rules about contractual penalties.

The Court made reference to indirect losses that parking contraventions can cause to operators, the need for large charges to deter breaches, the benefit to the community that such deterrence can create and the intention of Parliament for such charges to be enforceable.

Following the ruling in Beavis, it is without doubt that your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforceable.


----

I think we're getting scare tactics here..

Coupon-mad

Re POFA - it's not about what the rejection letter says. That can say whatever!

It's about the NTK (the first postal notice wording and dates).

Highview don't use the POFA, so this would have been 100% POPLA win nailed on, but I think you said you blabbed about who was driving? If so then POFA 'no keeper liability' as an appeal point is out the window.

I seem to recall from a pepipoo thread recently, that the 'PCN Admin Centre' NTKs are a version that attempts to use the POFA. But I spotted an omission and declared it non POFA- can't recall what that was. But that doesn't help if you've already said by ticking certain boxes or in your appeal words, who the actual driver was.

POPLA codes last 32 days, so try the disability complaint FIRST, worded robustly.

(At POPLA, the Equality Act is not considered, weirdly).

rachyface

Thank you once again, could I please ask for your assistance to briefly check what we are intending to send the landowner;

I would like to bring your attention to the situation in hand which took place on the 24th November 2018. Being a regular customer to your retail park, my wife and I parked in good faith, and found the new parking arrangements which are now in place are not clear at all when it comes to disabled users. (As you can see from the image below)

I am a severely disabled user and suffer from extreme spinal damage as a result of severe nerve root compression (Disc degeneration with disk signal loss at L2/3, L3/4, L4/5. Spinal lumbar/sacral.) where my mobility is extremely compromised due to my condition. While progress was extremely slow and painful (which required taking extra time and caution) I actually enjoyed the visits to Matalan and Pets at Home where I managed to book my dog in for his winter groom which costs well over £50 but was an absolutely necessity for him.

There has been no intention whatsoever of avoiding payment. I understand fully that I need to take greater care in the future if I want to get around all the shops.

However, I find this extremely unfortunate, discriminative and request this unfair charge to be cancelled. It is disproportionate and punitive, imposed by people who have absolutely no idea how difficult it can be for very disabled people and their families to access and enjoy facilities such as those offered at the retail park.

I would like to support my evidence with the Equality Act 2010:

The Equality Act 2010 creates a duty upon service providers - retailers/parking companies etc., to make 'reasonable adjustments' of all rigid policies (including adjusting time limits, not just removing physical barriers).

Time limits MUST have the potential to be extended for the disabled population at large. Legally, there must be flexibility where a victim of a PCN identifies that an occupant of the car as 'protected characteristics' that required more time for day to day tasks, to allow fair access to the facility. Quite simply, any PCN issued in these circumstances is unlawful and must be cancelled.

I really appreciate your help with this,

Regards,

Guys_Dad

Where is reference to and a copy of your Blue Badge in that appeal?

rachyface

Sorry I need to add that. Is that all or would you recommend any further amendments?

Fruitcake

I would add a few comments made by our MPs. This is recognised as an unregulated scam and our MPs have said this in open parliament. Use a few of their choice words, scammers, liars, bullies, cowboys.