BP forecourt PCN

Fruitcake

paulb76 said:

SayNoToPCN said:

As above

DO they comply with POFA2012 to hold the keeper liable? You need a yes or no here, and yif you are unsure, then check the NtK against the POFA2012, schedule 4, para 9 online. 

i have looked through pofa para 9 and the notice and i think they do. not an expert though so i tried to post a pic but not sure its clear enough to read.

https://i.postimg.cc/25KF1RJr/pcn-front.jpg

I can't get that image to open, but I think it might be a problem with the Postimages website as I can't get my own photos to open on that site at the moment.

paulb76

Fruitcake said:

paulb76 said:

SayNoToPCN said:

As above

DO they comply with POFA2012 to hold the keeper liable? You need a yes or no here, and yif you are unsure, then check the NtK against the POFA2012, schedule 4, para 9 online. 

i have looked through pofa para 9 and the notice and i think they do. not an expert though so i tried to post a pic but not sure its clear enough to read.

https://i.postimg.cc/25KF1RJr/pcn-front.jpg

I can't get that image to open, but I think it might be a problem with the Postimages website as I can't get my own photos to open on that site at the moment.

Wondered why it was showing blank. Not great at this technical stuff.
I thought it might be better to link that image because if posted as a pic like my other two it might be hard to read or be illegible.
I'll try again shortly.

Coupon-mad

The lack of signage is shocking. 

Also don't forget they will have no evidence of anyone leaving the site so no assisting them by badly wording your appeal.

 An appeal to PCM followed by appeal to the (kangaroo court) IAS may actually work, due to the lack of evidence and the fact that throwing in the towel at IAS stage is normal for PCM, who are not very good at proving their case.

paulb76

Coupon-mad said:

The lack of signage is shocking. 

Also don't forget they will have no evidence of anyone leaving the site so no assisting them by badly wording your appeal.

 An appeal to PCM followed by appeal to the (kangaroo court) IAS may actually work, due to the lack of evidence and the fact that thrwowing in the towel at IAS stage is normal for PCM, who are not very good at proving their case.

I think shocking is too generous!
Can you believe they even think displaying one (small sign) facing the wrong way at an entrance gives them grounds for extortion.

Anyway. As you say about evidence, there are more pictures when reviewed that show people stood by the car, including one of a random person that they must assume was involved. Are they even allowed to publish pics of un related parties? who knows. And has it come from video footage.

What does strike me when reading the notice is that they do not actually allege that anyone left the premises.
Maybe they don't have to but I would have thought if you are going to try and take money from people at least state they have breached them.
I'll put a pic up below so you can see what I mean.
They give a reason for the charge but do not actually say that anyone, including the driver actually left the premises.
Surely they have to allege the breach of terms, not just what the terms are.

Maybe i'm wrong but i would have thought for example if you parked in a disabled bay it would say, reason ' parking in a disabled bay without a blue badge displayed' and then clear pictures showing the car in that bay. ie its actually telling and showing you that you have allegedly breached the terms.


 
Would you suggest adapting the appeal format then from the keeper relating to no one leaving actually leaving the premises? How does that work when appealing from keeper?

Coupon-mad

For IAS, don't use a template, just appeal as keeper, saying what you have observed about the signs from going to have a look, and pointing out that the operator has shown no evidence of any breach of any term and if they want to make a prima facie case, the least they need are signs facing the right way, and evidence of a breach of a term by the driver, who will not be named but denies any breach and had no opportunity to learn of any terms anyway, due to what was clearly a lack of signage on any reasonable view.

paulb76

Fruitcake said:

paulb76 said:

SayNoToPCN said:

As above

DO they comply with POFA2012 to hold the keeper liable? You need a yes or no here, and yif you are unsure, then check the NtK against the POFA2012, schedule 4, para 9 online. 

i have looked through pofa para 9 and the notice and i think they do. not an expert though so i tried to post a pic but not sure its clear enough to read.

https://i.postimg.cc/25KF1RJr/pcn-front.jpg

I can't get that image to open, but I think it might be a problem with the Postimages website as I can't get my own photos to open on that site at the moment.

I posted the front page image on another post a couple of comments back as it was easier than trying to sort the link. Compliant?
I have also noticed the intended ' 60 quid add on' 
Looking at the IPC signage regulations is laughable.
'must try to adhere'  required to 'keep to the spirit of the guidance'  just a couple of examples of a strictly regulated business.

I have just pulled a picture from their 'evidence' of a sign that I assume is somewhere on the site. On a wall somewhere.
And what a load of nonsense it is anyway.
'Parking permitted for patrons whilst on the premises at all times' You don't have to buy anything to be a patron of somewhere.

Also it states 'drivers who leave their vehicles unattended at any time either before or after using the garage'
How on earth are they enforcing leaving a vehicle at any point.
checking the definition of unattended for purposes of law it means stationary and no one with it.
Their 'evidence' also shows that people were in (attendance) in the vehicle at all times it was there, as they indeed were. So was the vehicle unattended with no driver but multiple passengers?

'if unsure please seek further advice or refrain from parking'
Well that's going to get you a pcn isn't it when you leave the car unattended at any time to read the sign? Jokers.
 
It also says signs should identify themselves as 'the creditor' have they done this? I cant see that. Maybe they purposefully printed it in a 1mm white font on white background whilst following guidelines to 'try and do it'

And a £1 'admin fee' if you want to call them. These people really are criminals acting within the law and it needs to be dealt with immediately.

Coupon-mad

No, it says telephone PAYMENTS (by victims silly enough to PAY them) have £1 added.  That's illegal.

paulb76

Coupon-mad said:

No, it says telephone PAYMENTS (by victims silly enough to PAY them) have £1 added.  That's illegal.

So it does. I had trouble reading it as the writing is so deliberately small. 
Even worse, calling them up to pay a hundred quid and they chuck an (illegal) extra quid on.
Its reminiscent of a  'Nigerian lottery scam' How has this been allowed to go on so long.  

DW190

paulb76 said:

Coupon-mad said:

No, it says telephone PAYMENTS (by victims silly enough to PAY them) have £1 added.  That's illegal.

So it does. I had trouble reading it as the writing is so deliberately small. 
Even worse, calling them up to pay a hundred quid and they chuck an (illegal) extra quid on.
Its reminiscent of a  'Nigerian lottery scam' How has this been allowed to go on so long.  

Calls costing up to 50p per minute on their payment 0845 number.  Thieving bar stewards

Fruitcake

The 0845 number is premium rate, which is also prohibited.