PCN

Trudy1970

Hi - Anyone out there give me some advice please - currently at the IAS stage- more fool me for getting there I know. Fell foul of the appeal process when appealing the PCN in the first place so driver details have been given- however that said.. 
The site name and location on the PCN is a differet to the address that the private parking site has registered as owning.
The details on the parking signs are different to the information on the PCN. Does this make the PCN invalid???? 

Fruitcake

Nothing makes a PCN invalid. If you haven't actually made the IAS appeal yet, just don't bother.

Please tell us the name of the PPC, and the location. (Hospital, residential, retail etcetera).

Please also tell us what has happened so far.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

Have you complained to your MP yet?

Umkomaas

Here we go again - no identification of the parking firm. No need. 

Trudy1970

The details of the driver have been given fell foul of the tricks they use to get you to disclose driver details. 
The location is private owned land by a private parking complany who is a member of IPC. The landowner according to the parking company is them. So not owned by hospital of resturant .
The land area registered marked and documented by the council is for a different postcode to the one in the PCN. 
Which brings about the question  "How can you be heldliable for the charge when the information in the PCN is incorrect.
 Can I name the Private Parking company on here??? -

Fruitcake

Of course you can name the scammers. That's why you have been asked to supply it by the regulars.

It is very rare for a PPC to own the car park, so pardon me if I doubt what you have said. It may be true, but most of the time the PPC is a sub contractor to the landowner or landowner's agent.

Telling us where this occurred will help as if the location is known to the regulars they may be able to supply information about it.
We don't ask questions for fun. We need the answers to be able to help you, so please answer all questions asked.

KeithP

Trudy1970 said:

 Can I name the Private Parking company on here??? -

Yes, please do.

You need to read many many threads. All of them, without exception, name the parking company.

Trudy1970

Ok sorry about that - been tied up wth this for that long and keep reading info from variuos different sources - however none of the info really applied to the case so far. i didn't want to offend regulars, this being the first time I posted.
Excel Parking are the company

Trudy1970

Th company is Excel Parking
The alledged contravention took place at Castle Hill Car Park, Domcaster ,DN12 3HH, thats the address named as the site location. 
The signage at the site is DN12 3BX

Extract from the operators response
The appellant has raised issues regarding advertising permission. The adjudicator will appreciate this is not the forum for raising issues of planning permission, but for evaluating whether a correctly-observed parking contract exists between us and the motorist. The adjudicator will note that no issue has previously been raised by the relevant local authority regarding the signage displayed on site. The adjudicator will note that in such situations the signage and ANPR cameras are deemed to have implied consent until demonstrated otherwise. We would maintain that the pertinent fact in this the signage is compliant with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice and is sufficient for the purposes of forming a contract between us and the motorist.

Surelu they can't just put any address on the PCn and link it to what they want. I know its classed as technicality, but I was siure I'd read about another case where becuause the details in the PCN were incorrect the PCN was invalid for want of a better term.


 

Trudy1970

The alledged contravention was recorded 30/05/20..the PCN was posted 15/06/20.
The attached was my last reply
This extract below is part of their response. 
In their appeal the appellant states that they are the keeper of the vehicle and that the Charge Notice sent to them, was received outside the time scales set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 (which is what the section of the IPC Code of Practice the appellant has cited pertains to, keeper liability) However, we have not cited PoFA 2012 nor stated that the appellant was liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper. The motorist has identified themselves as the driver of the vehicle at the time of parking and it is on this basis we are holding them liable. Operators are not required to use the keeper liability provisions within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on land to which it applies. These provisions complement the common-law position which may be used to establish liability for a Charge irrespective of whether the Act applies or not. Where an operator chooses not to rely upon the Act, the stated time limits and notice requirements do not apply

Trudy1970

I have read many of the threads relating to PCN charges, including the newbies, I haven't come across anything that relates. This is currently causing more stress and anxiety then its actually worth. Please feel free to ask, as I don't know what info the forum needs 
Excel have said that they own the land in the last response which if you guys need me to upload i can do - I took over the case from my son as being a young driver and falling foul of the predatory tactics used I thought it better I step in. 
Or is this a lost cause

Any and all help will be gratefully received. At a loss now - Trying to use the complaints process is next to impossible. It appears that the bill passed to inorgorate the IAS is neither use nor ornament to the general public as only favours the Parking Cowboys. 

Fruitcake

What a shame you blabbed about the driver's identity. However that cannot now be helped. 

The IPC is not a regulatory body and their CoP is just rubbish published by an old boy's club.

As for their comments about their scameras and signs, there is no such thing as implied consent.
Either they have it or they don't.
If they don't then complain to the council planning department and make a complaint to the IPC.
Scameras need planning approval and signs need advertising consent. Not having the latter is a breach of the Town and Country Planning Act, and is a criminal offence. Sadly only the council can pursue it to court, but complaints should definitely be made to the council, the landowner, and your MP.

If the location on the PCN is different to that of the actual location, then even if they own the land on one, it is unlikely they own the land on the other.
Did they actually call themselves the landowner, or the landholder? These are two different entities, only one of which actually owns the land.