First PCN received - seeking second opinion

Bake86

Hi, sorry to be a pain. I just received my first Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd claiming that I parked in a KFC car park for over 5 hours, when in fact I visited on two separate occasions either side of the time I was captured on camera. (First photo shows me entering the first time, second photo shows me leaving the second time).


I'm planning to appeal online and am just looking for a second opinion on my appeal message as this is the first time I've ever had to do anything like this, and reading other threads here have worried me that I'm in for a frustrating time despite it being an open and shut case from my POV. Unfortunately a complication is that I lack evidence (didn't keep receipts as I didn't see this coming). My bank statements aren't specific enough to show times so I was not planning on submitting them in case they were worthless. The car park rules as stated on the notice are 90mins free parking - no return within 90mins, which we abided by.


Below is my appeal, any feedback/approval would be appreciated.


The PCN is claiming that we parked at a KFC establishment for over 5 hours (between 1:06pm and 6:19pm), when in reality we visited on two separate occasions at the times stated. We arrived on the first occasion at the stated 1:06pm, and didn't actually park as we used the Drive-Thru (only stationary while queueing). We immediately left the establishment to visit other places in the area before returning home. We then returned to the KFC shortly before the later time stated and parked only for the time it took to order and receive food (I estimate 20-30mins maximum). Receipts from these transactions were not kept as this issue was not foreseen. I could provide bank statements as evidence but they only show the date, and not the times, when these transactions were made. These could still be submitted later if they are deemed as substantial evidence.

oldernonethewiser

As everyone will tell you never identify yourself. Do not us "we" or "I" - Use the driver did this and that.

Redx

too much info , and CEL do not monitor people , they monitor vehicles , namely their cameras take pictures for ANPR recognition of the vehicle (not a person) , they obtain RK details from the DVLA and send an NTK to that RK (you)

they have no idea who was driving , so keep it that way , for now

go to the NEWBIES sticky thread and copy and paste the blue text template into notepad

add an extra paragraph that states

The driver states that 2 short visits were made on the day in question , both within the rules for the drivethrough and any "parking" and no NTK should have been issued because its a clear case of you "double dipping" where 2 interim photos have been missed completely by your fallible systems

If necessary bank statements and google maps GPS positioning and timing from mobile phone data and possibly from our own cameras may be used to support the alternative view of two short visits that day, therefore cancel this pcn forthwith


appeal as keeper with the full blue text, including what I wrote above

no "MY , ME , MYSELF & I" , so edit your post accordingly

the DRIVER drove on the day , the KEEPER received the NTK pcn in the post , the KEEPER is appealing as KEEPER

Bake86

oldernonethewiser wrote: »

As everyone will tell you never identify yourself. Do not us "we" or "I" - Use the driver did this and that.

Thank you for this advice. I did read it in other threads but felt it seemed irrelevant as I have to provide my name as part of the online appeal anyway (plus I'm not disputing I was driving).
My only crime was visiting KFC twice in the same day!

Redx

you should not even be revealing who was driving never mind not disputing it , edit your posts accordingly and do not trap yourself at this initial stage either

you received the NTK as KEEPER and you are appealing it as KEEPER , less is more, tell em nowt

Fruitcake

You have asked for a second opinion, and so far have had three, including mine, all telling you not to reveal the driver's identity.

There are occasions when revealing the driver's identity is a good idea such as an own space case. Yours however is one of the majority of cases where it is a very, very bad idea to throw away the protection of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 afforded to the keeper, a protection that the driver does not have.

The regulars here have been dealing with these scammers for years. If you want to ignore our advice, that's entirely up to you.

Egbert_Nobacon

Yes you do give the KEEPERS name in an appeal but if your car is like mine there is more than one seat.

The KEEPER may have been a passenger.

The_Deep

As this is a double dipping claim, do not get side tracked with who was driving, there could easily have been two drivers. Read some of these

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336/double-dip-parking-list-of-cases

Ask yourself who is a judge more likely to believe, a parking scammer, or a person who visits the same restaurant twice in one day. The driver's identity is of little consequence here, but, unfortunately, many posters are unable to see the big picture.

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.

Ralph-y

Have you complained to KFC?



Ralph:cool: