Capital Car Park Control 3 minutes on yellow line

aa92

Hello all, 

I am writing on behalf of my parents who have received a postal PCN (no prior windscreen notice) from Capital Car Park Control (BPA member). 

They stopped for 3 minutes (as indicated on the PCN) on a yellow line. The road is a small side road/service road adjacent to a Costa, the area infront of which they were stopped has two bays which are for Costa staff parking (they were not parked in these bays). I am assuming that CCPC has been instructed by Costa to manage these bays. 

Here is a link to street view which may better explain the area: https://goo.gl/maps/yMmsnCvRjFXBL9VS8 (they stopped on the yellow line to the left of the 1st staff parking bay). 

As per the process I am initially going to appeal directly to CCPC and then inevitably await their rejection and then proceed with POPLA. 

My question at this stage is does CCPC have any jurisdiction over issuing a charge for the yellow line? 

I am hoping that arguing lack of grace period and as you can see lack of clear signage will be sufficient in this case, but would appreciate your guys thoughts. 

Many thanks in advance!

Trainerman

I tend to agree with you. For me, you have a defence in  that the PPC are probably supposed to 'manage' the two spaces and in any case, if the driver was only there for three minutes , then grace period would also apply. I would certainly fight, not pay.

Castle

Do you mean "Capital Car Park Control" or "Capital Car Park Control Ltd"? 

Coupon-mad

There is an important distinction.  And do the signs (now, not on Streetview) have the same Company Number on, as the NTK?

Appeal using the NEWBIES thread template appeal but replace the sentence about pay and display machines with a sentence that no grace period was allowed and that the driver was looking for the terms on a sign, yet the car was ticketed within 3 minutes which is an insufficient consideration period, especially as there is nothing to say that yellow line is not the same as the continuation at the junction (i.e. it's not a car park and looks like public highway and you'd have to hunt around to know what terms applied and where the boundary is).

Also there would not have been any reason not to affix a ticket to the windscreen and the failure (or deliberate choice) not to do so, breaches the CRA 2015 requirement for prominence of consumer notices, as stated in the DLUHC's statutory Code of Practice which bans such predatory non-ticketing unless the ticketer was in danger, etc.  this is not new law.  The CRA has been law for seven years.

No implying who was driving.  THE NAMED KEEPER RECIPIENT APPEALS.

Be careful with your words.  Is the NTK POFA compliant in wording, compared to para 9 of Schedule 4?

Castle

It's the same "car park" as this thread:-
Parking at Costa - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

(I just noticed that the "worthless", (and unsigned), contract posted on 17/2/2022 by JRC123 doesn't mention Capital Car Park Control Ltd).

aa92

Castle said:

Do you mean "Capital Car Park Control" or "Capital Car Park Control Ltd"? 

The postal PCN asks for payment/representations to be sent to Capital Car Park Control Ltd. 

Coupon-mad said:

There is an important distinction.  And do the signs (now, not on Streetview) have the same Company Number on, as the NTK?

Appeal using the NEWBIES thread template appeal but replace the sentence about pay and display machines with a sentence that no grace period was allowed and that the driver was looking for the terms on a sign, yet the car was ticketed within 3 minutes which is an insufficient consideration period, especially as there is nothing to say that yellow line is not the same as the continuation at the junction (i.e. it's not a car park and looks like public highway and you'd have to hunt around to know what terms applied and where the boundary is).

Also there would not have been any reason not to affix a ticket to the windscreen and the failure (or deliberate choice) not to do so, breaches the CRA 2015 requirement for prominence of consumer notices, as stated in the DLUHC's statutory Code of Practice which bans such predatory non-ticketing unless the ticketer was in danger, etc.  this is not new law.  The CRA has been law for seven years.

No implying who was driving.  THE NAMED KEEPER RECIPIENT APPEALS.

Be careful with your words.  Is the NTK POFA compliant in wording, compared to para 9 of Schedule 4?

Have just revisited the area and taken images which are here: https://imgur.com/a/3mWGGSP

The Company Number on the signs is registered as Capital Car Park Control Ltd on CH. There is no mention of a registered company number on the postal PCN. 

Thanks for the suggestion about mentioning grace period in initial appeal. Having looked at the signage it does state no stoppage/waiting on yellow lines, but agree that the marking is ambiguous and may be a continuation at the junction. 

Regarding no notice to affix a ticket, I believe the area is controlled by camera and ANPR solely, so does it still stand that they are in breach? And if so is this something to include in the initial appeal? 

Regards to POFA compliance, the only thing that I can see that may be in breach of compliance is that the notice states:

"Further action may be taken which may include, increasing the parking charges further which may include costs and/or a county court order."

Umkomaas

Regarding no notice to affix a ticket, I believe the area is controlled by camera and ANPR solely, so does it still stand that they are in breach? And if so is this something to include in the initial appeal? 

An ANPR camera wouldn't be able to monitor yellow lines or staff bay parking - they monitor vehicle times in and out.  If it was an ANPR capture the NtK would show photos from a height of ~15-20 feet.

If the photos have been taken at car height it's likely that a PPC weasel has taken it, or maybe a self ticketer, possibly a Costa employee?

aa92

The images have definitely been taken by a CCTV camera. If you look at the images i've linked to above, in the first image you can see a camera on the top corner at the back of the building. 

The postal PCN states: "The alleged contravention was detected by either CCTV/ANPR or by parking attendants..."

Umkomaas

aa92 said:

The images have definitely been taken by a CCTV camera. If you look at the images i've linked to above, in the first image you can see a camera on the top corner at the back of the building. 

The postal PCN states: "The alleged contravention was detected by either CCTV/ANPR or by parking attendants..."

To me that looks more like a security camera, not particularly one normally associated with capturing parking events. More suspicious to me are the cameras sited on the opposite building (Melin) shown in your original GSV link one of which seems to be trained on the Costa staff parking bays. You have the NtK so that should provide you with better confirmation. 

Coupon-mad

Is there a sign warning drivers about the CCTV and what the data is being used for?  That's compulsory under the ICO Surveillance Camera Code, and the DPA 2018.  Is there a GDPR data sign?

You can't just film cars for the purpose of issuing PCNs without telling drivers that's what you are doing.

aa92

https://imgur.com/a/3mWGGSP - the two close up images of the signs both have some text about consenting to CCTV capture by entering the car park. 

The second close up sign image, in very small text at the bottom of the sign somewhat difficult to read, it does state "you have the right to request information etc but that we do not have to agree with your request but under data protection law must explain to you why we do not" 

It doesn't explicitly say GDPR anywhere.