PCM Notice to Keeper

Coupon-mad

Why not just search this forum for PCM Watchdog and PCM leaseholders and read all the results - spend time on reading these threads - to learn about why they should not be infesting this site, and how to remove them (if you or a relative is a leaseholder)?

Submit your appeal but no calling their scammer employee a 'traffic warden' or officer!

1) The photos were taken within a range of 17 sec;
2) The driver is visible in the driver's seat;
3) It appears that the situation in the street/car position changed slightly between the photos.

Due to the fact the car was not stationary, I am going to say, TRY IAS IN THIS CASE even though it's well documented to be a kangaroo court.

As long as you show their own evidence that not only was the driver in the car but the car was moving, and as long as the photos don't show something else like a passenger getting in/out (which doesn't help an IAS 'case') then argue till the cows come home, that the car was moving and see what drivel the IAS come back with, or if PCM bail out in the end!

Nothing to lose in your case by trying and PCM might just give up.

As long as you know IAS is a farce and if you lose you don't pay the PCN, and as long as you know not to even consider a non-standard 'IAS appeal' that costs a fee (think about it...) then you may as well push them to the end then if you lose, you can certainly defend this scam PCN in court anyway and will not have cause any detriment to your case by being reasonable and not ignoring it.

Redx

allondon wrote: »

There are no signs for the private road, however parking in the whole development is managed by PCM. After your response I'm keen to research further regarding the status of the road and PCM authority.

I would say it's a private road in a private estate then , not a public road at all (but open to the public) - so not under council authority control

allondon

Thanks everyone for the responses.
The estate site says "... The road will not now be adopted by council but will be a private road owned and controlled by [name of management company]".
So - yes - it's a private road open to public.
Will go forward with appeal to PCM as their evidence does not support their claim for "parked car" (driver inside, not stalled) and see what happens. Will use the term "parking attendant" instead of a warden.

allondon

An update:
PCM rejected the appeal insisting that the car was parked.
This is despite their own evidence showing :
1) Someone in the driver's seat;
2) Car position changing between the first and the last photos.
The question is if to appeal to IAS or it is a guaranteed loss. And what can be the worst case if it gets to the court (for some reason PCM are using Northampton even though they are registered in Slough).
Thanks everyone.

Le_Kirk

Appealing to IAS is seen as pointless generally, as it is a kangaroo court.  The court will be your local court, which you choose after you have submitted your defence and received  a DQ.  Have you actually received a LoC or a claim form yet?

allondon

No, just received a rejection from PCM. If appealing to IAS is useless, the next thing to expect, as the forums say, are letters from Debt collectors and then from Gladstones. PCM seem to be inclined to go all way to the court if they do not get the payment, therefore my partner is worried about the worst case scenario. BTW, the driver has not been identified, the appeal was done as  a keeper.
In my personal view the car filmed changing its position within 17 sec with a driver in cannot be considered parked but PCM ignore the obvious.

nosferatu1001

Worst case scenario is about £200. The fake addons from Gladstones, if they dont get the ENTIRE claim struck, are removed more often than not. This gets paid WITHIN 30 days, and there is therefore no CCJ registered. 
Of course it isnt parking
Who cares that they ignored it? noone here cares that they ignored it. The Court SHOULD care, and theyre the only people that matters

allondon

I am also curious about the following technicality. Double yellow lines (that the car was filmed on) mean "No waiting, no parking", though it is allowed to drop-off/pick-up. PCM would consider the latter as "Parking in restricted area" the moment the car comes to a halt. Which of the restrictions take precedence? Attached is the PCM signage

nosferatu1001

When you say they "mean" "No waiting, no parking" are you talking about 
- their meaning on public roads 
OR
- their meaning on this specific piece of land? State which. Because the meaning on public highway *does not have* to be the meaning on private land, for obvious reasons. 

KeithP

allondon said:

I am also curious about the following technicality. Double yellow lines (that the car was filmed on) mean "No waiting, no parking", though it is allowed to drop-off/pick-up. PCM would consider the latter as "Parking in restricted area" the moment the car comes to a halt. Which of the restrictions take precedence? Attached is the PCM signage

Double yellow lines do not necessarily have the same meaning on private property as they do on the public highway.

For example, on the public highway you can pick and set down passengers on DYLs.