PCM, High Point Village, TheIAS appeal

Bas_119

Dear all,
Sorry to take your time, I have searched but could not find my answers, any help would be appreciated.
Due to Croronovirus self isolation the driver of my vehicle entered High Point  Village in Hayes and has been in there for about 30 seconds conducting a 3points turn. At ont stage it was stationary for 3 seconds(driver did not leave vehicle)
PCM employee took photos on his/her phone and alleged that it was parked at that land.
I was about to send them the appeal from here but noticed that their NTK has incorrect time of alleged parking.
NTK says "parked at 15:24", but their photos says the vehicle was performing 3 points turn at 15:22"hrs.
My questions,
1- Should I continue with normal appeal or base my appeal as keeper on the fact that vehicle was not at that location on material time of alleged breach?
2- I noticed that double yellow line is a continued line from the public road into the private land/road, surely this is fault of council and misleading?

Please help as this is stressful.

Redx

Just use the blue text template from the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum

Appeal as keeper , no blabbing about who was driving

Expect pcm to reject the appeal , regardless of circumstances , do not overthink this topic and only nitpick in court , if it goes that far

This sc@m appears regularly on here at that location

Bas_119

Thank you very much, how about the timing, will this benefit me in any way in future?

Redx

I doubt it , read what the IPC CoP says about timing or observation periods

There are no regulations for private PCN,s , do not compare them with council ones

Follow my advice or suffer the consequences

Bas_119

I have latest IPC in front of me, version 7 which says,
The Notice to Keeper- Postal Notification following Notice to Driver;
The Notice to Keeper Must;
b) Specify the vehicle and the location and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking (surely on this occasion period is wrong?)

Redx

The time to nitpick is in court , read all the other threads to gain knowledge about this widely publicised location and sc@m , including predatory tactics , observation periods , etc , plus check if the NTK is POFA compliant too

I have told you what to do and where to find the template for the futile initial appeal

D_P_Dance

Due to Croronovirus self isolation the driver of my vehicle entered High Point  Village 

I must have missed that one.  I did not know that was compulsory.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

and google Parking Prankster, 31 minutes is not parking

Bas_119

Dear All;

I am doing this to help others in addition to helping myself.

Apology in advance, I finally found my post.

Please note; I am aware of most people having very negative view about appealing to PCM and TheIAS, but I had to give TheIAS a chance to at least once do the right thing.

I have appealed to The IAS, please find my appeal and the response from Operator.

I strongly believe operator breached the IPC code of practice on a number of areas, but can an expert please look at the case law they are refereeing to and other matters and give me feedback to complete my response.

Also they had another breach, they demanded money by letter, whilst this appeal was outstanding.

*************

Dear All;

I the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter from Parking Control Management (PCM), acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to PCM was submitted and rejected via a letter dated ******.

I wish to appeal against it as am not liable for the alleged parking charge, I strongly believe that PCM neglected on their duties and made a false allegation. On rejection letter dated ***********, PCM advised me that The Independent adjudicator is unable to cancel a charge based on ground of mitigation and the decision will be based on facts and evidence only.

Therefore I appeal based on facts and evidence only and I hope assessor is able to cancel this PCN based of fact and evidence. I have to bring to your attention that the burden of proof is with the parking company to prove;

On; 19/03/2020 at 10:23hrs a *************** was parked at high point village.

The first ground of this appeal should be enough for an assessor to cancel this NTK, however as I am aware that PCM is incompetent company and neglectful on their duties, I will add other grounds for consideration. I am aware that assessors have seen thousands of complaints and appeals about PCM and “High Point Village”, however this appeal is being done following a visit to scene, contact with Hillingdon Local Authority and the land owner, also other relevant authorities will be contacted after the Corona-virus Pandemic.

Grounds:

1. False allegation;

As register keeper I have received a letter form PCM alleging that;

“On; 19/03/2020 at 10:23hrs a ********* was parked at High Point Village”.

PCM also provided their own evidence in form of 10 photographs uploaded onto their website.

I can prove that my vehicle was not parked at “High Point Village” on 19/03/2020 at 10:23hrs. I have contacted ***** Council CCTV Unit to check where my vehicle was at the time of PCM alleged parking.

****************CCTV department at **************** Council confirmed that my vehicle was “in motion at Station Bridge, travelling south” on 19/03/2020 at 10:23hrs. (Please find the evidence attached in form an email from Hillingdon CCTV department).

This is “Fact and evidence”.

The Independent Appeal Service (IAS) considers these appeals on the balance of probability, I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that my vehicle was not at “High Point Village” at the time of alleged parking. This makes every action taken by PCM illegal (from handling my data to demanding money), They should be responsible for breaching Data Protection Act, PCM also demanded money by false representation to make a gain for themselves or cause a loss to me.

I also add following grounds to highlight that PCM is seriously breaching The IPC Code of Practice.

2. The signs on this land are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

2.1) Signs at the entrance to this private land is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice (latest version V7, p31). The IPC Code of Practice states: “Signs at the entrance to Controlled Land or Private Car Parks should not infer an invitation to park”.

The entrance to this land has Two sings with a big Green P written in the middle of the signage, indicating that this is a parking space and an invitation to park (Picture1, picture 1.1, picture1.2) this is a clear breach of IPC code of practice. there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

2.2) Page 29 of IPC code of Practice states that:

“Text Size

The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the Motorist in relation to the sign”.

Signage at High point Village breach IPC Text Size as well;

Signs on private land are written in a minuscule font in order to prevent victims from reading and understanding the terms. When signs can not been seen (even with 20/20 vision) or read, it is impossible for anyone to enter into a contract. Therefore no contract can be and have been formed.

2.3) Height and positioning of the signs;

Note the height of the signs (picture1.1.1 and 1.2) in comparison to parked vehicles adjacent to them.

Other signage (picture2, picture3) are very low next to the Tesco Express on a bollards and too low to be seen or read. These signage indicate that they are deliberately placed High or Low to entrap victims.

2.4) (Picture 4 and Picture 5) show a double yellow line that has started at the public road and continued all the way into the private land without any separation or breakage. This is another breach, the lines on road surface gives impression that the private land is still part of the public road.

3- Keeper liability requirements not achieved;

Notice to Keeper must meet a stated set of requirements, for the keeper to be liable under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

On this occasion, NTK also does not meet the requirements of IPC Code of Practice.

IPC Code of Practice (P35) states that;

“The Notice to Keeper must:

(a) be in writing;

(b) specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking

Therefore as no evidence of period parked is provided by PCM, then the keeper cannot be held liable under POFA and Notice to Keeper (NTK) is non-compliant with POFA 2012 and non-compliant with IPC Code of Practice.

4- No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the IPC Code of Practice;

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.

IPC Code of Practice states that;

“Authority to Operate on the Land.

23.1 If an Operator is issuing Parking Charges on land which is not owned by them, they must have written permission from the Landowner to operate on the Private Land”.

5- No evidence of landowner Authority to issue tickets

I require PCM to produce evidence prove whether the parking company has a right to issue tickets on the land in question. PCM must have clear authorisation from the landowner to issue tickets on their land. They must be able to present the full current contract as evidence.

6- PCM Predatory tactics (breach of IPC Code of Practice)

Photographs provided by PCM shows that their own attendant used predatory tactics to issue the PCN, faster than it was possible for the victim to perform a U-Turn.

PCM own photographs show that the victim was performing a U-TURN manoeuvre and left the site, whilst being constantly photographed by the attendant in a predatory manner (attended took 10 photographs in a matter of a few seconds).

This is a clear breach of law, Data protection and IPC code of conduct.

IPC Code of Practice (P27) states that;

“Professional Standards

Operators must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure Drivers into

incurring Parking Charges”.

(There are numerous reports that PCM operators hide behind rubbish bins, hide inside vehicles, or pretend that they are calling their mothers, but in fact they use these predatory tactics to photographs victims).

Photographs show no evidence of parking on this site. The photographs of the vehicle do not show it is parked at this site, merely that the vehicle is performing a U-TURN Manoeuvre.

7- No period of grace given for the motorist to read the additional signs within the private land,

The signs on entrance (picture1,1.1,1.2) do not mention anything about the “NO GRACE” period and it is only mentioned once victims have entered the private land (picture6).

It is impossible to enter into a contract without seeing, reading, and understanding the terms, since there is “NO GRACE” period anyone entering and stopping to agree a contract is immediately in default. This is another IPC Code of Practice breach by PCM. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

“13 Consideration and Grace Periods on Private Land

13.1 Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land”.

8-  Equipment, Technology and Systems,

PCM to confirm what technology used to obtain 10 photographs of my vehicle, where they were stored and who has access to them and to provide a log of equipment maintenance.

I firmly believe that any of these breaches on their own are enough grounds for a successful appeal but taken together they demonstrate a wilful disregard by PCM of the code of Practice of the IPC, the law and Data Protection Act.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this Notice to Keeper request appeal be upheld on every point mentioned above

Bas_119

PCM response on Prima Facie stage

Site background:

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (‘PCM’, or ‘the operator’) have been contracted by the freeholder of the land to monitor and enforce a parking management scheme at High Point Village since 10th November 2009. PCM’s scheme covers both the underground parking area, which is designated for the residents of High Point Village and guests to the on-site hotel, StayCity, and the access road leading to the car park.

The access road is largely abused by station traffic, which can impede the residents’ use of their secure parking area, as well as cause congestion concerns. Therefore, the terms and conditions for the use of this area require vehicles to park wholly within the confines of a marked bay for up to a maximum stay of 20 minutes. Signage further clarifies what is meant by ‘parking’ and states that “this includes stopping, waiting & drop & collection”.

The contravention:

The vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of the private land on which it was photographed. These terms and conditions are clearly stipulated throughout the area and upon review, the operator is confident that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was correctly issued, in line with these signs.

On this occasion, the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.

The advertised terms require vehicles to be parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay; the signage is clear in outlining this and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms. Signage in the area is clear – stopping and waiting or drop & collection is not permitted. The vehicle was parked; therefore, the driver agreed to pay the charge.

Photographic evidence provided below clearly shows the vehicle to be parked outside of a marked bay and thus, a PCN

was properly issued.

Response to the appellant’s representation:

1. The vehicle was observed parked at 10.21 and was initially photographed at 10.21:21. The last photograph

showing the vehicle was still on site, albeit leaving the area, was captured at 10.22:04. As the driver had left

the vicinity before the notice could be affixed, the PCN process was then completed, service trigger changed,

and the notice uploaded to our system. This was completed within 1 minute. The notice shows the time that

the PCN was processed (10.23).

I appreciate & accept that the appellant has obtained CCTV footage of the vehicle pictured on station Approach

the roadway located at the base of our enforcement area. This would concur with the evidence & the

explanation details above. The operator evidence shown below proves beyond doubt that the vehicle parked

contrary to the terms and conditions between 10.21 & 10.22 and that the notice was processed at 10.23 after

the vehicle had been driven away.

2. The signs make it very clear that anyone parking on that land do so agreeing to pay a parking charge. Parking

is a service like any other. The parking operator, with the permission of the landowner’s agent, is entitled to

make this offer to users of the land. This amounts to a contractual offer which the appellant accepted when he

parked in this area. The appellant's intention to be bound by the operator's terms can readily be inferred from

the decision to park.

We do not accept the appellants points that the signage is not clear. The area has numerous signs at all levels,

including entrance signs – indicating no stopping or waiting or drop and collection. It is a common, simple, and

clear term that, when parking in a private car park, vehicles should park within bays if they are provided.

Parking is permitted within the bays.

The entrance signs do invite persons to park as there are bays provided for these persons; however, they also

advise drivers to read the terms & conditions. In addition to 15 signs erected on this relatively short access

road. The roadway is marked with the words NO DROP & COLLECTION – PRIVATE ROAD.

In response to the appellants other points relating to signage; All signage and signage locations must be audited

by the IPC; therefore, I am confident that signage is fully compliant with IPC guidelines and industry standards.

The operator maintains that signage is clear and adequate throughout the parking area.

As previous mentioned the area is private property and not a public highway; However, a private land owner

may of course choose to mark the area yellow lines but on private property these are unenforceable via the

road traffic act However, double yellow lines on private land given over to parking do have a clear meaning –

that the landowner wishes there to be 'no parking at any time'.

3. The notice to keeper was sent to the keeper on the 24/03/2020 – copy below.

The period of parking is specified in the follow phrase; This Parking Charge Notice relates to the period of

parking that immediately preceded the time specified above …”.

4. The appellant has alleged that the operator does not have the required authority to operate on this site. The

charge arises from a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signs. It will be noted

that we, as the operator, are a principal (not an agent) in this contract. This site has been audited by the IPC

and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. However,

whilst we maintain that we do, in fact, have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the

principal in the contract); the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist.

See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially

sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal.

5. Answered above

6. The vehicle was parked in the access road whilst dropping a passenger/s. A dictionary definition of parked is a

vehicle stopped and left in a place for a period of time. The Appellant vehicle is stopped outside of the marked

bay and is left in situ for a period of time, albeit a short period. It is worth noting that several short term

parking bays were available as seen in the enforcement photographs.

The vehicle appears to have stopped in the access road in order to drop a passenger. It was stationary whilst

passenger exited the vehicle. If the vehicle had been merely performing a manoeuvre or in a line of traffic, the

vehicle would not have been photographed.

7. The operative patrolling this site tends to stand in the same location beside the entrance to the underground

parking area in order that they can view the entire restricted area. He is clearly on view to all drivers entering

this location. There are no large rubbish bins in the area and their vehicles are parked away from the location.

8. Any driver is of course, entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms. It is agreed that the

signs cannot be read from the vehicle, nor are they intended to be. The driver is entitled to park and consider

the terms before making the decision to park. The operator would expect any driver parking on private land,

to park in bays where they are present. However, the driver made no attempt to do this. The signs at the

entrance make it clear this is private land and restrictions apply as do the road markings. The photographs make

it clear the driver made no attempt to consider the terms; therefore, they are deemed to have notice of them.

9. Photographs and data is originally captured using company issued smartphone via a secure application. The

smart phone is used for enforcement purposes only. The data is then transferred to our secure systems and held

in line with our data protection policy (available on our website). The data is not retained on the smartphone

after this point

Bas_119

They refer to following case to refuse providing their contract

Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially

Fruitcake

Complain to the DVLA and include the scammer's own evidence that the vehicle did not park or drop off, but was merely turning round.

The scammers admitted they have no proof that anyone was dropped off. They actually stated that they assumed this but their images do not back it up. If someone had got out of the vehicle then their operator who took ten pictures would obviously have taken one with a passenger alighting. They didn't so on the balance of probabilities it never happened. 
They make great explanations of where their scamployee would have stood and what they would have done, yet what the scamployee didn't do was take a picture of someone getting out of the vehicle.
It is not uncommon to see someone open and close a door that has not been secured properly whilst the vehicle is in motion. If this ever came to court you would put the scammers to strict proof that this did not happen.

As well as a DPA/GDPR complaint to the DVLA you should also make a complaint to their KADOE department for breaching their contract.

DPA/GDPR complaint should go to ccrt@dvla.gov.uk 

KADOE contract breach complaint should go to KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

You should also complain to the ICO about this data breach.

The scammers reference to VCS vs HMRC is irrelevant. You will (should) get to see the contract if the scammers try court.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?

Other than complaints you are now in ignore mode just like the NEWBIES tells you unless you get real court papers in the next six years. Come back to this thread if that happens, and tell the scammer's DPO of any new address if you move house in that time.