SA Parking PCN for ticket face down

FaceofContusion

Before you all ask yes, the Newbies FAQ’s have been read before posting this!

The driver of the vehicle received a PCN for a ticket that had been blown over in the wind, it was still on the dashboard but was face down. The ticket was valid for 24 hours so the driver was not in breach of any time limits. The PCN was stuck to the windscreen.
It was issued by AS Parking, they are AOS Members of the IPC and work with IAS (bad news apparently). They have NOT been contacted so have no record of the driver, and advice on here says no contact until receipt of the Keepers Notice.
Most infuriating is that this ticket was issued at 9:30pm on a Sunday...seriously!
A few things that haven’t been seen on any threads yet, not sure of how much relevance they have, if any. A total newbie here and feel way out of depth.

1. The ticket being face down meant that the issuer of the PCN was unable confirm that the parking ticket bought was valid (which it was). However, there is a unique code printed onto the back of the ticket (it’s also on the front) Does anyone know what this code is? It may relate back to the machine? If it does, this code was still visible meaning that if they wanted to check what was purchased from the machine and times etc, they could?? (It could just relate to something else but would be good to know)

2. The ticket itself does have one of those sticky peel off backs on it. The driver did not use this, as it is designed so that the ticket can be stuck to the windscreen on the inside. But, the back of the ticket says “please display this ticket, with the other side facing up, on your DASHBOARD; enabling all the printed information to be inspected”. The ticket was originally placed onto the dashboard the correct side up (obviously) but there are no directions about STICKING the ticket down, technically if the driver had used the peel off back the way it was designed, and stuck the ticket to the windscreen, that would have actually been a breach of the contract.

3. There was no real loss of income to the land owners as the ticket was valid. The issuer was paid to inspect the cars no matter if tickets were issued or not. How can £100 be justified (£60 if paid within the 14 days). Only real expense from the PCN was the ink and paper it was printed on plus the 11 minutes it took the issuer from observing the parking ticket to the issuing of the PCN.

4. A small point probably not of any relevance but mentioning it anyway...The driver nor the Registered Keeper purchased the ticket from the machine.

There’s so much info on the newbies page that it was kind of overwhelming. There seems to be very little success, if any, with the appeals (especially through IAC). Is it worth the months of worrying and stress if the driver/ keeper just ends up having to pay anyway. Google reviews of AS Parking do not instill any confidence in the appeal ever being accepted (no surprises there). The ticket was issued in Cornwall and apparently the closer you live to Truro the more likely you are to go to court? This would most likely mean that the keeper would end up having to go, which not something they want.

Not 100% sure how the driver/ keeper would appeal or argue this PCN or how any similar situations have ended? There don’t seem to be many positive outcomes of the so called fluttering tickets. Will definitely read through the Newbies part again as it was a lot to take in but would appreciate any help! Thanks!

The_Deep

Most judges tend to regard fluttering tickets claims as a trifle and a waste of court time. Why to have to ask yourself are these tickets so flimsy and not sticky backed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Not 100% sure how the driver/ keeper would appeal or argue this PCN or how any similar situations have ended? There don’t seem to be many positive outcomes of the so called fluttering tickets.

There are hundreds, google "fluttering tickets + Parking".

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and public ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Most judges tend to regard fluttering tickets claims as a trifle and a waste of court time. Why to have to ask yourself are these tickets so flimsy and not sticky backed..

Very true, but.......

"2. The ticket itself does have one of those sticky peel off backs on it. The driver did not use this, as it is designed so that the ticket can be stuck to the windscreen on the inside. But, the back of the ticket says “please display this ticket, with the other side facing up, on your DASHBOARD; enabling all the printed information to be inspected”. The ticket was originally placed onto the dashboard the correct side up (obviously) but there are no directions about STICKING the ticket down, technically if the driver had used the peel off back the way it was designed, and stuck the ticket to the windscreen, that would have actually been a breach of the contract. "

The_Deep

if the driver had used the peel off back the way it was designed, and stuck the ticket to the windscreen, that would have actually been a breach of the contract. "

How so?

Coupon-mad

Not 100% sure how the driver/ keeper would appeal or argue this PCN or how any similar situations have ended?

With any IPC firm, the advice is always the same but the appeal doesn't get an outcome. Court does.

There don’t seem to be many positive outcomes of the so called fluttering tickets.

Yes there are, in court we see 99% wins.

ImNoExpert

FaceofContusion wrote: »

The ticket was issued in Cornwall and apparently the closer you live to Truro the more likely you are to go to court? This would most likely mean that the keeper would end up having to go, which not something they want.

I'll happily be corrected, but if AS Parking (or any PPC for that matter) issue a County Court Claim against the driver or registered keeper, then that driver / RK will become the "defendant" in that case, and the defendant is the individual who selects which County Court a hearing will take place at. Just because the driver / RK lives near Truro, doesn't mean they would have to select Truro as the County Court.

If its a case that AS Parking might only issue a claim because they believe the defendant would select Truro County Court, then throw a spanner in their plan and select Bristol, Yeovil, Cardiff, etc. Sure, it'll mean a fair trek for the defendant, but the fact that Truro County Court hasn't been selected might be enough to cause AS Parking to decide to discontinue.

Again, though, I'll happily be corrected.

For what it's worth, I received a parking charge notice from AS Parking over two years ago, and thus far it's only gone as far as the "Debt Recovery Plus" stage, where they say they will "recommend that their client take court action" if you don't pay them £150, but DRP have no ability to take you to court, that's always going to be AS Parking, if it happens at all.

If you're waiting for the NTK, watch out for the "offer of good will" to allow to to pay the IAS £15 for an out of time appeal.