Is this worth fighting? PPS Helston

didgeridoooo

Top left - POFA

Coupon-mad

It's quite possibly POFA worded but it's page 2 not page one that gives that wording. Putting a heading 'POFA' doesn't make it so, on its own!

didgeridoooo

thanks, well second page doesn't refer to POFA at all, but as it's referred to on page 1, maybe this weakens them under pofa. And unlike our other ANPR ticket, there is no image of driver so there's no way for us to remember who was driving in this case. I think that means this would be a pure POFA defence. If you had to guess off top of your head with NO guarantees of course, what would you say are rough chances of winning this on POFA if we were to fight? Just rough guess percentage based on your huge experience.

Coupon-mad

Obviously page 2 doesn't mention the Act. Why should it?

It gives the wording set out in the Act...which is what I was telling you it would. This is NOTHING to do with just shoving in the name of an Act it's clearly about putting the words the Act tells them to put.

didgeridoooo

Thanks CM. I am a little confused to be honest. So the wording on Page2 should comply with POFA. To my mind, it hasn't. Are you saying you think it has? Obviously this is fairly mission-critical!


Not sure it's an avenue worth going down, but I believe POFA requires the NTK to be served within 14 days. Whlist the date on this NTK is 8 days after the parking event, we genuinely only received this on Thursday which was 31st, which means we received it 16 days after. I assume this isn't worth pursuing as the law deems their NTK served two days after they CLAIM to have posted it (but clearly didn't post it for several days, and my wife threw the envelope which may have had a postmark on, grrr!)


I found this at the end of a Defence by Seahaven on the forum, which words my point rather nicely, if I were to defend this point:


"In this instance whilst the date of issue of the PCN was XXXXXX, the PCN was in fact received by post on XXXXXX, some 23 days after the alleged date of parking. There was no reason for such a lengthy delay in the public postal system, and the defendant contests the validity of the Issued Date as published, as to date the claimant has presented no evidence of the actual date of postage of the PCN. It could be interpreted that the claimant has falsified the Date of Issue of the PCN to appear as if it had complied with POFA 2012. It is assumed that the PCN was produced by means of a modern digital publication system, and as such, a digital record held by the claimant should easily prove or disprove the date upon which the document had been produced. The defendant has not been furnished with such evidence, and therefore contests the claimant’s assertion that the Date of Issue is true."


I will dig through POFA to see how many failures I can spot. At first glance, compared to other NTKs received, this one seems VERY sparse to say the least, so I would expect many failures and that may help me convince my wife not to pay and to let me fight it.

Coupon-mad

In what way are you saying the words do not comply with para 9 of Schedule 4?

didgeridoooo

Most is complied with, but these are the ones I refer to:

"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates" - Vehicle and land yes. Period of parking is debatable. ANPR shows entry and exit times which is not parking. - I think others have said this isn’t worth pursuing, if so, we can call this one complied with, but if I challenge the ticket on any other grounds, I would try running this past a judge as this one bugs me. If proof of actual parking didn’t matter, why do attendants routinely take photo evidence of parked vehicles when ANPR is not in use? (Answer - because proof of PARKING is necessary in court?!)

"(c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;" - Debatable again on the 2nd and 3rd points. But on 1st one, “describe charges due from driver” - no such mention in my NTK of any sums/charges which should have been paid.

"(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid" - Not complied, no such info.

"(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." - I take issue here - (Frustration of contract? Deliberately shortening window for appeals?) - Not including weekends, it was 6 days from the date they claim to have posted it, and the date I received it. Deliberate delay, devious practices?

That's all I can find. Maybe too thin to risk running on, especially if you think my points above are wrong/weak. thank you CM

Fruitcake

The UK Government has stated that ANPR scameras are not fit for car park monitoring and has banned its use in council and local authority car parks.
This is why council CEOs have to take pics of the vehicle in situe.

Parking scammers are completely unregulated and are allowed to use ANPR. You are correct that ANPR time is not parking time, but I doubt you would get anywhere with a defence that a two hour stay could be wholly be down to driving around waiting to park.

The NTK appears to be PoFA compliant so your main points should be,

Not the landowner.
No standing (contract) to issue charges in their own name.
Inadequate signage.
If the NTK was too late for keeper liability to apply then include that as well. WE don't know because you haven't told us the date of the alleged event or the date received.

Get pics of the site and signage now, and see if there is anything on say google maps showing the older signs.
Try to find out when the PPC took over.
If the site is still owned by the council then do a forum search for council owned privately run car park. Set the search criteria to show posts.

didgeridoooo

Thanks FC -

"I doubt you would get anywhere with a defence that a two hour stay could be wholly be down to driving around waiting to park." -

Point taken, fully. However, I didn't claim that would be my argument, not sure I would even provide one, burden of proof is surely on the claimant to prove that the vehicle DID park. I accept a judge will likely not see it that way, hence why it would only be an additional point, IF i had other arguments worth being in court for at all! Your suggestion isn't the only possibility either.

1 - We know these people are scammers.

2 - We know PPCs have doctored documents and photos in the past.

3 - Therefore, it could be asserted that the vehicle could have entered and left, then entered and left again 2 hrs later - and the scammers took the earliest "in" and the latest "out" photos to concoct their scam cake. Again, I wouldn't argue that, but if Judge asked how ANPR photos don't prove parking, I would suggest such a hypothesis to at least show it's feasible. Also I would ask the Judge why councils no longer use ANPR enforcement in the same way, they could, if they thought it were valid and proper.

But yes, again, I do take your point and suspect this is futile as a central defence, so it won't be. Maybe just a tacked on "oh and consider this please...."

NTK compliant - oh. Ok. Thanks

My wife told me the signage is "excellent" so I thought that was a non starter. I just got a video clip which is not great, but it does show the entrance signage which I personally think is completely insufficient. Nothing on the actual entry (only visible once passing ANPR), and it is totally insufficient to advise motorists of ANPR timed entry/exit cameras.

Video clip taken couple of days ago - https://imgur.com/a/SDBamFz

Google - https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0986086,-5.2788679,3a,75y,338.28h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO9s2aqdSVuWiOCYIVe_pmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Coupon-mad

That is not excellent signage! There is a sign under foliage and very few others, and I can't see the £100 in large lettering like in the Beavis case and I agree I can't see any indication that this is now ANPR.

When I Googled the place I found it did used to be Council run; did they sell it?