PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Coupon-mad

No it sounds like the landowner wants to help, but wants some proof you are not making it up about the driver being an authorised user.

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No it sounds like the landowner wants to help, but wants some proof you are not making it up about the driver being an authorised user.

Let's hope so. Will respond and provide an update once I hear back from them.

Cornerhog82

Still awaiting response from the shopping centre manager from my second email providing the VRN of the permitted car. In the meantime, a second PCN has been sent to the RK for a second day the vehicle used the car park. Should they be dealt with one by one, or anticipated as further PCNs being received for each day now with the manager?
What is the direction of action if the manager argues the penalised vehicle was not authorised to use the car park and continued to do so for the week? Despite the occupant being permitted on a separate vehicle?

Cornerhog82

Cornerhog82 wrote: »

Still awaiting response from the shopping centre manager from my second email providing the VRN of the permitted car. In the meantime, a second PCN has been sent to the RK for a second day the vehicle used the car park. Should they be dealt with one by one, or anticipated as further PCNs being received for each day now with the manager?
What is the direction of action if the manager argues the penalised vehicle was not authorised to use the car park and continued to do so for the week? Despite the occupant being permitted on a separate vehicle?

Is there any detriment to requesting a cancellation to the second PCN within the email trail related to the first PCN?

Coupon-mad

Yes, email again with the new PCN number in the complaint to the retail park. Chase the cancellation up and certainly complain that you now feel victimised and harassed and ask what they will do to restore your faith in ever shopping there again. And that you've told all your friends and colleagues about it, mentioned it on Facebook and your family are boycotting the retail park already as everyone is flabbergasted about this scam.

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, email again with the new PCN number in the complaint to the retail park. Chase the cancellation up and certainly complain that you now feel victimised and harassed and ask what they will do to restore your faith in ever shopping there again. And that you've told all your friends and colleagues about it, mentioned it on Facebook and your family are boycotting the retail park already as everyone is flabbergasted about this scam.

So manager has responded to RK request to cancel first PCN. They are saying that as the permit to park was on another vehicle and exempts the vehicle not the driver, the charge can't be cancelled and that I approach PPC to appeal. Is it worth pushing back to highlight my disgust and suggest other people don't use their shopping centre, or simply follow the PPC appeals process?

They also confirmed that they have not passed details to the PPC, However, the PPC have all previously supplied information e.g. VRN etc. of exempt vehicle, as they have been provided to the shopping centre manager.

Quentin

Do both! .

Cornerhog82

Quentin wrote: »

Do both! .

Ok, so appeal process for first PCN will need to be done. Sending email to local MP as well highlighting the disgust of the situation and refusal of shopping centre to cancel.

When appealing to the PPC should any reference be made to the exempt vehicle, or purely that 'an occupant' was exempt as employee of X? I've seen the the template on newbies board to use, but want to be sure that same line is maintained on the identity of the driver.

Coupon-mad

I would make reference to the exempt vehicle and state that the employee in question was an occupant of this car for a few days, due to (whatever reason he wasn't using his usual car).

Definitely push again with that complaint; it is WRONG for the retail park to say they ''can't'' cancel a PCN (they can, they've just been fobbed off by their agents - do they like the tail wagging the dog?).

And pointing you to use the appeals process is pointless, especially if it's an IPC firm but also would be just as likely to lose at POPLA (if it's a BPA firm) as they won't consider this a valid reason to uphold an appeal.

Which PPC?

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would make reference to the exempt vehicle and state that the employee in question was an occupant of this car for a few days, due to (whatever reason he wasn't using his usual car).

Definitely push again with that complaint; it is WRONG for the retail park to say they ''can't'' cancel a PCN (they can, they've just been fobbed off by their agents - do they like the tail wagging the dog?).

And pointing you to use the appeals process is pointless, especially if it's an IPC firm but also would be just as likely to lose at POPLA (if it's a BPA firm) as they won't consider this a valid reason to uphold an appeal.

Which PPC?

Its Care Parking (https://www.careparking.co.uk), which I understand to fall under Anchor Group Services. Not clear if they're an IPC firm. From checking the IPC website there is no Care Parking, just Care Park. The BPA website shows them as Anchor, trading as Care Parking.

I will push back with the complaint to the manager and see what happens. Failing that, what is my next best course of action, still follow the online appeals, then POPLA?

Should the overlooked technicality of transferring the permit from one vehicle to another for a period of a few days be referred to in the response?