Fistral Beach Initial Parking appeal

ak47a

Hi everyone
I got a lovely present from Initial Parking after our trip to Fistral Beach in Newquay last month:


 
Its a notice to keeper for a £100 charge. The contravention is shown as "Unpaid Tariff Time". The entry and exit times shown on the NTK are 15:14:46 and 16:47:22 respectively. It took a while to enter and find parking, queue for the payment meter, find out it doesn't take cards, download the app (with very poor reception) and later to queue to exit. The online parking app shows a booking in the history from 15:33 to 16:34.
From looking through previous forum posts (this seem to be a notorious car park), it looks like the POFA might not have the correct invitation. Also it took quite a while to find parking so that should be a factor and there was a case regarding this very same car park where it was ruled that time spending searching for parking doesn't count as parking.

I don't know what the grace period is but that may be another factor. Unfortunately I don't have a picture of the T&C signage and as I live hundreds of miles away going back to take a photo isn't really an option.

Anyway, here is the initial appeal letter I've drafted. Really welcome any comments:

*********

Dear Sirs

I have just received your Notice to Keeper XXXXX for vehicle registration XXXXX.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to Britannic Industries your client landowner, Newquay Town Council, Visit Cornwall and XXX, the MP for Austell and Newquay.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

The driver did not fail to pay for parking time. Payment was made via Justpark (Booking ref XXXXX). The time the car was parked did not exceed the time paid for since it was a very busy day with significant queuing and waiting to enter and leave the car park and to find parking. Your ANPR system only records times of entry to and exit from the car park and not the time parked.

Please refer to case PE v Ms X (Altrincham 17 March 2014) in relation to the same car park where the judge ruled that the 31 minutes the defendant spent driving round the crowded car park in Whit week did not classify as 'parking'. The ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your agents, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine but do add that the app is not a suitable method in a beach car park with poor and fluctuating reception.  

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/04/transcript-donated-approved-judgment.html

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation., i

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, and darfts have beenopened for publc consulatation,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, under new legislation 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/

Please also read these

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Fruitcake

Complain to the BPA about the use of the word "should" where the NTK says the keeper "should" tell the scammers the driver's details.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "should" means an obligation or duty to do something. There is no such obligation or duty in the PoFA, and it does not use the word "should" at all. That statement is misleading and a misrepresentation of authority.

Have a look at other threads about Initial and Fistral Beach including the one by Minniesox9. 
I posted a comment  on that thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76203122/#Comment_76203122   about another a poster called klm who posted pictures of the signs as well as the alleged contract between the scammers and landowner. You should find this useful at the PoPLA stage.