PCM (UK) LTD

Megsmum

Good morning,   I wonder if anyone can advise, please ?
I recently received a PCN from PCM.  This attached four time stamped photos of the vehicle.  The PCN has an error, in that it alleges the car was stopped at a location and the car was not present in the location at the time they say.  Their 'evidence' does not place the car in the location at the time they state.   I am setting out below my response :

"Further to your PCN as dated above.  I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

I comment as follows : 

IPC Code of Practice states;

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.

13.2 Before a Parking Charge is issued Motorists must be allowed a Grace Period. A Grace Period is a 10 minute period at the end of a Permitted Period of Parking.

it is impossible to enter into a contract without seeing, reading, and understanding the terms, if there is NO ‘grace’ period anyone entering and stopping to agree a contract is immediately in default.  This is an IPC Code of Practice breach by PCM.

I further note that your PCN refers to the vehicle being ‘parked’ at the location at 15:45 on 17/09/2020.

However, your evidence photographs are clearly timestamped as follows :-

First timed : 15:13:45

Second timed : 15:14:11

Third timed : 15:19:28

Fourth timed : 15:20:01

The vehicle was stopped at the location for less than seven minutes.

The IPC Code of Practice permits a Consideration Period in order for the Driver to make an informed decision in respect of stopping on the Private Land.

In fact, the Driver was not even present at the location at the time referred to in your PCN (15:45).  Therefore, I assert that

(a) your PCN is incorrect, the vehicle was not present at the location at the time stated within the PCN and your ‘evidence’ does not support your allegation that the vehicle was still present at the location at 15:45,

further ;

(b) in direct contravention of the IPC Code of Practice, your Operator allowed the Driver less than seven minutes to locate, read and assess the signage at the location.

Therefore, please accept this correspondence as an Appeal against the PCN referred to above."

However, they have written back rejecting this as an 'appeal' because I did not attach any 'evidence';  in fact, my evidence can only be their own time stamped photographs.  I cannot see how I can prove that the vehicle was not present at the location at 15:45 as they say.  Equally, they cannot and do not prove that it was.

Can anyone offer any advice on where I can go from here please ?  

Many thanks, Beth.

D_P_Dance

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

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 and have your say

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

Redx

Read the IPC and IAS advice in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum

A rejection was inevitable and it is rare for us to recommend that you appeal to the IAS

A court of law is the usual way to settle this

Megsmum

Redx said:

Read the IPC and IAS advice in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum

A rejection was inevitable and it is rare for us to recommend that you appeal to the IAS

A court of law is the usual way to settle this

Thanks, I did go through the Newbies threads but got myself tied up in knots !  
I really don't want to go as far as Court.  
I am so cross because they don't give proof that the car was there when they say it was and yet they reject my appeal for not having evidence ?? Neither do they !! aaargh !  I am just going to end up paying it.
Thank you though.

Redx

They were never going to accept an appeal no matter what the appeal contained , there is no profit in acceptance , so rejection was inevitable no matter what was said or the circumstances or paperwork

The purpose of appealing was to show a court that you engaged with the claimant and did not ignore it

It is court where you can present your side , your arguments , to a judge , the judge is then the referee

I am not sure what you expected from the appeal ? I expected a rejection because that is their business model , especially at this time of covid where revenues are down , it appears that you had the vain hope of acceptance by the claimant ! There was never a chance of any appeal being accepted , even if you were at death's door !!

If you think your case is so strong , fight them in court !! That is the place to settle it

Megsmum

I guess I expected more than rejection because their claim is faulty.  They are making a false claim.  They claim that the vehicle was at a location at a time when it just simply was not.  They cannot prove that it was much as I cannot prove that it was not.
Is there any point in going to the IPC ?
Some advice I have read on here seems to suggest that Court is not always the only way forward and so I thought I'd have a stab.  If  the car had been parked there for 40 minutes or whatever it is they are claiming I'd pay up but I know that the driver pulled up, turned round, read the sign and left !

D_P_Dance

They cannot prove that it was much as I cannot prove that it was not.

You do not need to, 

nosferatu1001

A PCN is an invoice
A difference in timing like that can be called an invoice error, and a new invoice issued.
I dont know why you think it would be more than that. 

Megsmum

nosferatu1001 said:

A PCN is an invoice
A difference in timing like that can be called an invoice error, and a new invoice issued.
I dont know why you think it would be more than that. 

Because surely there is a big difference between parking for upwards of 40 minutes (as they claim) and arriving, checking out the signage then leaving !  
Is that not a factor at all ?  

Redx

Of course it is , but they have to prove their claims with photographs , timestamps , statements etc

You can assert that it was a very short period of time as a first person witness

A judge decides

Megsmum

Redx said:

Of course it is , but they have to prove their claims with photographs , timestamps , statements etc

You can assert that it was a very short period of time as a first person witness

A judge decides

Ah, okay, their timestamps show the car in situe for less than seven minutes.  
My letter to them makes this point.  
Can I re-submit my letter with their own photos as my evidence ?? )