Private parking ticket issued on land not owned by the property!

Coupon-mad

Yep you do have to complain first.

I had to complain to a certain aggressive roboclaim 'legal' firm before complaining about them to the ICO, who were useless and thought I hadn't complained to the company first.  I had to shove it under their noses twice before the ICO weakly told the 'legal' firm to pull their socks up a tad and respond to my SAR. 

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Yep you do have to complain first.

I had to complain to a certain aggressive roboclaim 'legal' firm before complaining about them to the ICO, who were useless and thought I hadn't complained to the company first.  I had to shove it under their noses twice before the ICO weakly told the 'legal' firm to pull their socks up a tad and respond to my SAR. 

It's a legal term!

Jenni_D

Keller-Lenkner is the legal company looking at a group action against DVLA?

WesAslan

@Jenni_D @Fruitcake @Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk Hey peeps thanks so much for the responses and advice, I will do them throughout the week and update you guys if I get any response.

I emailed my MP, but they have incredible backlog and probably were really busy during the election period so it will take a moment for them to get back to me.

All the best x

WesAslan

Parking company responded to the appeal, was pointless in appealing - they're insisting on their claim and I guess I have to go to the IPC now. They're saying I should of contacted them to confirm and they have 24hr contact lines, 1. on their website it says their office hrs are from 9.30-5, 2. on the cardboard they stuck on the wall it doesn't say anything about 24 hrs and the number is a paid number. Also there's no lighting on them so impossible to detect and read at night, there's only one residents parking sign on lamp post but has no info of park direct or fees. 

My issue is here this access road serves other properties not just clare court, such as entrance to 827 hertford road and gardens of 811-825 hertford road. And the signs they have placed are just on the left so it seems like the court is a private place and not the road, but then issue tickets on the road too so its a very illusive practice and done explicitly to trick ordinary motorists. 

From the evidence they have attached of the vehicle nothing is readable, and all on the opposite side to where I'm parked all impossible to notice at night. So lack of signage and against the code of practice by bothe IPC and Department of Levelling Up. 

Ps. The council have replied saying road is not adopted too (no idea what this means), but their documentation online is contradicting and misleading which they have accepted and said it may be amended in the next edition. I'm confused as hell, they have attached the GIS map again, that map is total batshit - the road in front of clare-court-access-road is the access road communal allotments owned by the council - Elliot field allotments and that's the only entry to the allotments which isn't showing on the GIS map also. 

Also there's evidence on council planning site that the council have done works on a sycamore tree on that land. 




The response below of the PPC: 

Thank you for your appeal received on 01/05/2022 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge

Notice. We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made in conjunction

with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant. Our records show that this notice was correctly

issued as your vehicle was parked in a way which breaches the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

This PCN was issued because the vehicle was found to be parked in a permit holders only area and

failed to display a VALID parking permit. There are numerous warning signs displayed in various

locations around the site, including the sign in CLOSE PROXIMITY to your vehicle (photographic

evidence provided) to ensure all approaching motorists are fully aware of the restrictions that are in

force highlighting the need to display a valid parking permit in order to utilise the premises.

In reference to your appeal please note that we are unable to give you access to the landowner

documents as this is confidential however, we can assure you that this land is private land and your

vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions. Your vehicle was observed from 16:07 till

16:18. This is sufficient time for the driver to be able to read and display a valid PDUK parking permit.

The warning signs clearly state that vehicles MUST display a valid PDUK approved parking permit fully

within the windscreen and comply with all conditions on the permit. We have reviewed the time/date

stamped photographic evidence taken at the time your vehicle was issued with a PCN and we can

confirm that no valid parking permit was on display upon inspection. As no valid parking permit was

displayed, your vehicle was indeed parked in DIRECT BREACH of the terms of parking as set out on

the warning signs - the terms are clear and do not make any exceptions. The warning signs are

unequivocal in its terms. The driver is not discharged the responsibility of having to park in accordance

with the terms of parking at the time of parking. This PCN has been issued correctly.

Furthermore, all of our warning signs prominently displayed a 24 hour customer service telephone

number which you could have called in the event of any uncertainty when parking on site and had you

called the number upon your arrival, you would have been advised which steps to take in order to avoid

receiving a PCN. We must remind you that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the parking

restrictions in force are actively observed and adhered to when parking on PRIVATE PROPERTY and

we would advise that you do so in the future in order to prevent any further PCNs being issued.

Regrettably, we can only cancel a PCN if it was issued incorrectly or if the contravention did not occur

and are unable to do so based on the grounds of your appeal.

Unfortunately on this occasion, we are forced to uphold the PCN as it was issued correctly. We have

now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted

settlement amount. Please now make payment of £60 to reach us by 30/05/2022 or £100 to reach us

by 13/06/2022. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be

offered again. You now have a number of options;

1. Pay the parking charge notice. Payment can be made online at www.parkdirectuk.com or by calling

the automated payment line on 0845 026 7158

2. You may also make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) on the following website

www.theias.org quoting the Parking Charge Notice number and the Vehicle Registration number within

21 days from the date of this letter. If you opt for independent arbitration of your case, you will lose the

opportunity to pay the lower amount and £100.00 will be payable in the event your appeal is rejected.

Please note that the IAS is unable to waive a parking charge notice due to mitigating circumstances

and a decision will be based solely on the facts and evidence. You may appeal on any ground which

undermines the lawfulness of the charge or which otherwise affects the suggestion that you are liable

for it. Please note that if you opt for the IAS appeals process, all evidence collected relating to this case

will be submitted to the IAS. We would like to advise you that we do not enter into multiple appeals and

we will not enter into any further correspondence in relation to this appeal. If you choose to send us

another appeal, we are afraid that we are unable to log or answer it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like from the drivers perspective nothing is really visible 1 and two it's very elusive that it's on the court and nothing on the side i'm parked on, it makes it seem like ok the court and their bays are private but this is a access road serving numerous properties, additionally there's nothing on this side and no road lines or markings. Also, given that I entered and exited with poor lighting conditions it amplifies my points. 

There's also many cars there without permits so that gives the driver confidence too so ok this side is not private. Some of those people with no permits actually live in clare court. 

Essentially the land registry shows that plot of land is not owned by them, their claim of saying the scale causes distortion and crap is !!!!!!, according to that it could actually be smaller too so its my word over theirs and they should prove its in fact bigger than whats actually showing, I think I added what they said previously about the registry in a previous post. The property is surrounded by numerous properties why would the registry be wrong on that specific part, what are the odds of that, if it was wrong on any other face/side it would encapsulate and overlap other lands, additionally, roads have specific dimensions so I'm sure mapping a road wrongly on ordnance survey is rare. The line thickness is roughly 30cm, lets say 15cm more to the side I was parked is theirs that still doesn't encapsulate any of the car, even if it was whole 30 to one side that doesn't the road is like 4-5m wide. 

I'm going to add the registry with further images underneath to signage and etc and would appreciate everyone's comments and thoughts. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HSokO7PXZEkwcQbVZnpEagVz26Z3K-PZ/view?usp=sharing 


Thanks in advance all x

Coupon-mad

It is hard to picture it and hard to follow your account of what is where.  IAS will think the same and are are considered as bent as a nine-bob note, anyway.  So they won't bend over backwards to understand (only 4% of people win).

My advice is to draft a word document of what you want to say concisely to IAS, then show us.

Alternatively, don't waste your time on the (according to most accounts and their own stats) kangaroo court and just wait to see if they sue you, and stay under the radar. PD are not particularly prolific in court. 

Those pics will be useful evidence to support your defence, IF a claim ever comes.  Think of Small claims as the ultimate fair 'appeal' only with a hearing and Judge, like Judge Rinder, only without the quips.

Certainly no paying!

WesAslan

Thank you @Coupon-mad will do the document and put it up here. I'll send it through the MP too so it'll be more formal.

WesAslan

@Coupon-mad @Fruitcake @Jenni_D Hey peeps, I've done some writing today after another ticket was issued. Clearly they are showing zero remorse and want to go full on with the claim, well I can tell you that I'm willing to go to court too, whatever the costs may be. The writing is on the drive, feel free too add anything you think may be suitable or any evidence. 

I've done some calculations and measured the road to be 6m, even if we go by 99% confidence level per the land registry and add 1.1m from half way the car still fits there, in reality there is much more because we can take the property behind and their drive as reference (827 Hertfd road). 

Link to drive: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n-05s7BYaHEva_4Rgt_tFIu6QEZZw2iu/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102610357768404772245&rtpof=true&sd=true

Thanks in advance.

Fruitcake

I may have missed it, but have you stated that a contract is formed by signage, and that the signage displayed does not show a site map or wording to define the site boundary?
A motorist cannot agree to abide by contract terms if the area covered by the contract is not defined such that a motorist cannot possibly know where the contract terms apply.
Terms and conditions cannot be added after the contract has been agreed.
I think Thornton vs Shoe Lane and Lord Denning's "red hand rule" might apply. 

In any case, your car is outside the boundary of the relevant land and you cannot therefore be held liable for a charge.

WesAslan

Fruitcake said:

I may have missed it, but have you stated that a contract is formed by signage, and that the signage displayed does not show a site map or wording to define the site boundary?
A motorist cannot agree to abide by contract terms if the area covered by the contract is not defined such that a motorist cannot possibly know where the contract terms apply.
Terms and conditions cannot be added after the contract has been agreed.
I think Thornton vs Shoe Lane and Lord Denning's "red hand rule" might apply. 

In any case, your car is outside the boundary of the relevant land and you cannot therefore be held liable for a charge.

Hey @Fruitcake, I included a contract cannot be validly and enforceable as the vehicle was not parked on their land. I've now incorporated what you have stated and the red hand rule. It's on point 9, hopefully its good and meets the needs. 

Are there any specific rules on signage on both sides of a road, I know this is commonplace in ordinary roads, the signage on the side you are parked only applies and varies a lot in most cases from one side to another.