Driver observed leaving site PCN

MothballsWallet

Le_Kirk said:

The forum is not brilliant on a phone, as you have discovered.

That's an under, under, under statement, thanks to the "awesome new" Vanilla forum software MSE Towers decided to move a few years ago.

ChristianDior

Hi All,

So as the keeper of the vehicle, the keeper has opened an appeal to IAS after requesting a SAR which the keeper received.

The keeper appealed the following:

As you can see in the attached CCTV footage [photo of the ticketer following the driver walk off the premises], the Ticketer has clearly acted in a predatory manner.

The Ticketer could have clearly called the driver back and advised the driver of this "rule" and prevent this "breach" from even occurring in the first place.

This is one of the reasons as to why PPC's exist in the first place, to tell people where they can and cannot park as opposed to acting in such a predatory way this Ticketer has.

I would also like to point out that the lighting of where the parking sign is placed at the time of the event (21:05) is not lit therefore making it unreadable upon the entrance at the site.

The attached image [Google Maps streetview image of the signage at the site] is taken from google maps which shows the sign at the entrance.

At the time of the "breach" (21:05) it is dark out and in the CCTV footage, it shows that this light is not turned on unlike the other lights, therefore making it unreadable at the time of this incident. [image from the CCTV at the time of the incident showing the light above the sign isn't lit whereas the rest of the lights are lit in the area].

So the keeper has now received the following from the operator:

At this site drivers of vehicles must remain on the site whilst their vehicle is parked and using the onsite facilities. Failure to comply results in a charge of £100 to park. This is a contractual term which is displayed on signs throughout the site. Our warden has observed the driver leaving the site and therefore the driver has become liable for the charge of £100.

Vehicle stopped adjacent to UKCPS signage, driver debussed and walked offsite towards main road.

Should the keeper submit a response in regards to their response or refer this case straight to arbitration? If the keeper was to respond, what would they point out? Ask them to prove that the keeper of the vehicle was the driver?

Thanks! 

Fruitcake

Keep responding.
State that the PPC has failed to identify the driver, and has not provide proof that the driver left site.
No boundary defined on the signs, either with a description or a map at the time of the alleged event, therefore have not proved that the driver, as opposed to an occupant of the vehicle ever left the site. 
The contract between the driver and PPC is formed by signage. Since the signage did not define the site boundary, there can have been no contract offered to and agreed by the driver about leaving an undefined and unspecified area, therefore there can have been no breach.

Coupon-mad

Not sure what I've missed, but why did the keeper admit that the person in the photo was 'the driver' and admit that they 'walked off the premises'?

This was winnable by the keeper NOT saying that, and instead by requiring the PPC to show evidence that the person in the grainy photos was the driver and that they left 'the site'.


"If the keeper was to respond, what would they point out? Ask them to prove that the keeper of the vehicle was the driver?"

Too late, that cat is out of the bag:  

The keeper appealed the following:

As you can see in the attached CCTV footage [photo of the ticketer following the driver walk off the premises], the Ticketer has clearly acted in a predatory manner.
The Ticketer could have clearly called the driver back and advised the driver 

This IAS appeal will be lost and will have to be fought in court instead. Could have been won IMHO, just by making the operator prove the person was the driver.  That's all fallen away now, and in court this will be all about unlit signs.

However, there most likely will never be a court claim, and certainly DO NOT PAY when you lose this IAS appeal.  As @Umkomaas said:

 UKCPS have been litigiously benign for a number of years, and...I can't see them relighting their candle with your case. 

The only difference now is there is no difficulty proving the driver left the site, because unfortunately, you wrote that in the appeal.

ChristianDior

Not sure what I've missed, but why did the keeper admit that the person in the photo was 'the driver' and admit that they 'walked off the premises'?

Because there is a picture of the person sat in the drivers seat, then leaving out the door of the vehicle.

"If the keeper was to respond, what would they point out? Ask them to prove that the keeper of the vehicle was the driver?"

Too late, that cat is out of the bag:  

The keeper appealed the following:

As you can see in the attached CCTV footage [photo of the ticketer following the driver walk off the premises], the Ticketer has clearly acted in a predatory manner.
The Ticketer could have clearly called the driver back and advised the driver 

How can they prove that the driver of the vehicle is the keeper is what I'm saying

Grizebeck

You have messed up such an easy to win case (and will now probably lose it),  ignore any letters  from debt recovery if the case is lost and please don't keep coming back to ask if you should ignore another DRP letter .... (or ask what you do next or "next steps")
You shouldn't have included any of what you put in your appeal i am afraid, no idea why you included any of that stuff

VladamirPutin

Defeat plucked from the jaws of victory.

Coupon-mad

 But - bottom line - it's only aggressive and useless ex-clampers UKCPS, who operated out of a port-a-cabin behind the Blooming Rose pub in Leeds!

No-one here is paying UKCPS.

Interesting first post, Vlad. Welcome! Wondering which side of the fence are you on? Do you need help with a scam PCN?