Parking Charge Limited PCN

Jobijoba

Hello,

I have received a PCN from Parking Charge Limited. Station car park but apparently private land as no mention of Byelaw 14.
"The driver is liable for a Parking charge etc..". I was NOT the Driver but I am the keeper.

I will appeal to PCL, but a few points I would like to have your expert opinions on:

1. Photograph shows the car driving along a lane at 3pm ish and driving back at 10pm. Absolutely no sign of the car entering or exiting car park
2. As per point 1. above, the car was NOT parked on the car park, as at the end of the lane where the car is photographed driving in and out, just before the car park, there are some spaces where cars do park as what used to be the station ticket office, has been converted to an office, and employees of the company in question, do park in that area
3.The driver parked in that area and NOT in the car park. Nothing indicates in that area that one needs to pay to park unlike at the entrance of the actual offical car park.
4. On the actual cark park where the car was not parked, daily fee for parking is £2.50. The charge is the usual £100 "discounted" to £60 if paid within 14 days: Even IF the car had been parked within the car park, a loss of £2.50 would have "affected" the company ownng the car park, how can they justify a penaly for £100 or even £60?

Member of BPA apparently so futher appeal following PCL rejection on the basis of poor excuses could be done. Next question is: Does BPA take action on behalf of land owner if BPA rejects appeal?

Thanks

The_Deep

how can they justify a penaly for £100 or even £60?

It is not a penalty, it is an invoice for the alleged damage they suffered for an alleged breach of an alleged contract. We call it a scam.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Fruitcake

Jobijoba wrote: »

Hello,

I have received a PCN from Parking Charge Limited. Station car park but apparently private land as no mention of Byelaw 14.
"The driver is liable for a Parking charge etc..". I was NOT the Driver but I am the keeper.

I will appeal to PCL, but a few points I would like to have your expert opinions on:

1. Photograph shows the car driving along a lane at 3pm ish and driving back at 10pm. Absolutely no sign of the car entering or exiting car park
2. As per point 1. above, the car was NOT parked on the car park, as at the end of the lane where the car is photographed driving in and out, just before the car park, there are some spaces where cars do park as what used to be the station ticket office, has been converted to an office, and employees of the company in question, do park in that area
3.The driver parked in that area and NOT in the car park. Nothing indicates in that area that one needs to pay to park unlike at the entrance of the actual offical car park.
4. On the actual cark park where the car was not parked, daily fee for parking is £2.50. The charge is the usual £100 "discounted" to £60 if paid within 14 days: Even IF the car had been parked within the car park, a loss of £2.50 would have "affected" the company ownng the car park, how can they justify a penaly for £100 or even £60?

Member of BPA apparently so futher appeal following PCL rejection on the basis of poor excuses could be done. Next question is: Does BPA take action on behalf of land owner if BPA rejects appeal?

Thanks

The BPA are not involved in the appeal process at any stage. They are there to support their members and provide a thin veneer of respectability.

However, you should complain to the BPA and the DVLA about this, provided you are absolutely sure the car was not parked in the car park and the place where it was allegedly parked s not covered by the scammers.

You should also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Does the vehicle have a built in GPS, or does the driver have a smart 'phone with google maps or some form of position tracking that proves the vehicle never entered the car park?

When you get to the PoPLA stage, use all the available points from post 3 of the NEWBIES and post your draft here before you submit it.

Jobijoba

The driver is absolutely sure the car pas not parked within the actual car park but on a non designated area before and outside the car park yes. There is no proof that this was the case and equally there is no proff that it was parked as suggested by the scammers in the actual car park as the 2 front/back reg photographs provided only show the car on the lane leading to the station where the camera is and the actual car park is nowhere to be seen and it is just as good a 2 photos of a car driving along a road at 2 different times within a private land area.. It is called a PARKING charge, not a driving charge, as technically speaking the car could have been driving in circle in front of the station for 5 hours, this is not against the law or their rules as far as I am aware.

Surprised it is a private car park as it is effectively a station car park, and I would have thought it would be byelaw 14, and belonged to the train company, but apparently not the case.

Is it the case as for byelaw 14 that the POC can not prosecute and can not pass on the information to the land owner who can prosecute, and that the only way POC can do anything is if driver appeals to parking association POC belongs to (BPA in that case) who can in turn prosecute on behalf of POC if/when BPA rejects appeal (and yes I know this would be the 2nd stage once driver who have appeal to POC in the first place and once POC would have rejected appeal which they obvioulsy always do)?

Le_Kirk

POC = Particulars of Claim. Do you mean TOC which = Train Operating Company?

Guys_Dad

Jobijoba wrote: »

It is called a PARKING charge, not a driving charge, as technically speaking the car could have been driving in circle in front of the station for 5 hours, this is not against the law or their rules as far as I am aware.

If a car is on private land and driving round for 5 hours then that would normally be covered by the t&c. Too many Newbies on here try to claim they were not parked as they were still in the car or their engine was still running. Driving round slowly for a long time would be just the same, subject to there not being a queue either for finding a space or leaving.

I hasten to add this case seems, from the information, not to be applicable to that as driver wasn't on the relevant land. The BPA, however, should be informed if the ANPR cameras are not 100% trained on the relevant land.

Umkomaas

Could you give us a post code to access a Google Street View to attempt to see how it's all configured and where cameras are sited please?

Jobijoba

Unfortunately, being a private road, googlemap does not have a view on it, other than the sign saying "private road" right at the beginning of it :

If you then imagine that the camera captures cars coming in and out of the private road, just after/before those signs, parking charge operator will assume that if there are 5 hours between getting in and getting out, means that one has parked for x hours and should have paid. This would be a reasonable assumption, except the car park is right at the end of the road in question, by the railway, but just before the actual car park and the signage stating that one needs to pay to get in and park, there is a drop off area, along with some marked and unmarket spaces, which belong to the company whose offices are in what used to be the station building which has been converted into offices. The driver was parked in one of the unmarked spaces, so clearly not in the car park itself, and not within a company dedicated space either, and assumed he/she did not need to pay as there is no sign saying one should do so. The camera only faces the road, and does not capture any cars getting in/out of the actual car park, or within the company spaces area,

Jobijoba

Apologies Le_Kirk, I meant Parking operating company, probably not the exact term I should have used!

Coupon-mad

At which station is this scammery taking place?

Guys_Dad

It is possible that there may be forbidding signage at start of private road that you may have contravened. Was there any signage that implied any form of charge for stopping in the actual road itself?