PCM Sharp Practice and Conflicting Signage

Red_Geranium

Dear All
I have been reading your threads, including the Newbie thread, in order to try and challenge an unfair PCM NOK. I have challenged the NOK (without screen fine) with a template from the forum and they have now sent me another letter rejecting my appeal. I have now put together a letter with reasons and photographs as to why it should be rejected and requesting a POPLA number.
I am not sure whether Point 4 applies as I don’t fully understand Schedule 4 and whether they have conformed with it and whether I should include that paragraph. I have therefore attached a link to the original NOK, the signage at the site and the second rejection letter from PCM. (sorry wouldn't let me as new poster)
I am also not sure of any other details I should include or may have missed. I wouldn’t pursue this if I didn’t believe that this is sharp practice and very unfair.
Any help, observations or pointers from the experts would be very gratefully received.
Many thanks

This is what I am appealing against:
Dear Sir/Madam
REF: Appeal to PCXXXXXXXX

I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle Reg XXXX XXX with reference to Notice to Keeper number PCXXXXXXXX regarding an alleged parking incident on XX/XX/2019 at XXXXXXXX and your subsequent refusal of my NOK appeal.

I am challenging, as the registered keeper, your parking charge notice on the following grounds.
Please respond to each individual point that I state.

1) Unclear / Insufficient signage. The driver did not see any parking notices in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked nor on the approach to where it was parked. The signage for xxxx Public Car Park was displayed prominently on entry at xxxx xxxx. I contend that your signage does not comply with the BPA guidelines and is potentially entrapment. (see attached photos)
2) Unclear Signage. Two areas that PCM manage in the vicinity are demarcated by an entrance area and indicated by two posts and another area with an entrance barrier. The space shown is an isolated space that is not clearly enough marked as being separate to the xxxx Public Car Park spaces (see attached photos).
3) Location. The area that the space you have indicated is located in xxxx and not xxxx xxxx. Xxxx xxxx is shown in the attached photo.
4) Your claim is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The wording on your NTK appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. I challenge whether you or the landowner suffered any financial loss directly arising from my vehicle being parked in the alleged space especially relating to the duration of the alleged stay as there is no duration from and to on your notice.
Please note POPLA have upheld numerous appeals in favour of the motorist, including appeals against your company, on this ground alone. So, I must conclude that you are fully aware of the validity of this point in this challenge.

3) I do not believe that your company has sufficient interest in the land to grant you the right to form contracts with drivers and pursue charges in your own name in the courts.

4) Your NTK does not confirm with Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012

If this challenge is rejected I require that you

1) Send me a valid POPLA code to allow me to make a detailed appeal to POPLA based on, but not limited to, the above points.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully
“the registered keeper.”

Quentin

If your PPC is pcm then you are dealing with an IPC company (no popla!)

Read up in the newbies FAQ thread on the futility of appeals to IPC companies

And why any further appeal to the IAS is also futile

You now wait and see if they take legal action against you

Until then ignore everything except a lbcca or court correspondence

They have 6 years to start legal proceedings against you

The_Deep

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.

Red_Geranium

Thank you for your response.
Wow, I really thought I had a chance based on reading the Newbies posts. How very disappointing. It is infuriating that they can get away with this sharp practice and virtual entrapment.

Their reply was that I had the opportunity to pay the reduced rate of £60 for next 14 days.

Umkomaas

I wouldn’t pursue this if I didn’t believe that this is sharp practice and very unfair.

The entire industry is based on sharp practice and unfairness.

You might get the opportunity to persuade a Judge of your case. But PCM will dictate if that is to happen or not.