PCN with out of date VNC so (presumably) missed letters - sanity check process

Ricky116

Hello,

I have read the NEWBIES post. I am sorry in advance for wasting anyone's time, but would much appreciate a sanity check.

On 10/12/021 I received a Debt Recovery Plus letter for a PCN with date 16/09/2021 issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd who manage a car park owned by Manchester City Council. This was my first correspondence regarding the PCN. The stated charge was £170. I have no idea what the original charge was.

I ignored this, but appealed to the landowner (Manchester City Council) who informed me that they had no record of any PCN associated with any of my details. I therefore didn't do anything further, and awaited a NTK before contacting UKCPM.

I have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors about the PCN, so it would appear the PCN is still being actively pursued. The stated charge is now £285. These are the only 2 letters I have received.

Unfortunately, I cannot proceed with an appeal to UKCPM because the online claim form states "This PCN has been transferred to our Debt Recovery Agent. Please contact us if you wish to enquire about this PCN". They do not accept emails, but do allow appeals by letter to the address "provided on the parking charge". I do not have a parking charge from UKCPM, so I assume any appeal letter would need to be made to their general business address.

After realising that my V5C was not registered to my new address, I updated my registered address in April 2022. 

They may have sent a NTK in the mean time, which I did not receive.

Context for the PCN. My wife entered the car park, attempted to pay but was unable to do so using the PayByPhone app, nor via the PayByPhone website, and then left the car park. She states she was unable to pay due to incorrect signage (the car park number was not recognised). She says she was only parked for 6 minutes while trying to pay, but I assume this was 16 minutes after reading on this forum. Ideally this would corroborated with timestamped photos of the car entering any leaving.

My current plan is:

1. Send a SAR via email to UKCPM's DPO. I will not ask for a PDT machine record as attempts were only made via the app/website. 

2. Send an email to Gladstones to confirm the SAR and put the case on hold, following the NEWBIES guide.

My questions are:

1. The landowner has an email record of an appeal, albeit which they ignored due to not finding a PCN. But UKCPM have no such appeal on record. Is it worthwhile sending a letter to UKCPM's general business address, with the details of my appeal (as the keeper, not disclosing the driver). I do not have a POPLA reference number or anything like that.

2. If it must be defended in court, would I be able to do the defence entirely on behalf of my wife (I am more than willing to defend until the end), or must she appear in court (this will not happen)?

Thanks for the help, sorry again for yet another post for help here.

Ricky116

Actually I'll just put my redacted email to the landowner here, so all the details are available, as it is concise:

I am the registered keeper for a vehicle REG. I have received a letter regarding a 'parking charge' issued for an alleged parking infraction on 16/09/2021 at the ADDRESS car park. The PCN number is listed as 12345, sent by UK Car Park Management Ltd.

This PCN number which I have been given does not resolve on your online appeals form. I am therefore sending this message via the generic form to appeal any PCN that may exist for this car, date, and number.

These are the reasons that I, the registered keeper, expect the alleged PCN to be voided:

* The vechicle entered the car park at 1944, and departed 6 minutes later at 1950 because parking could not be purchased.

* Parking could not be purchased due to inadequate signage at the ADDRESS car park. The car park number (required to pay) was stated as 12345 on the signage, but this number was not recognised on the PayByPhone website nor on the PayByPhone App.

* Therefore, it was determined that payment was impossible, and subsequently the vehicle immediately departed the ADDRESS car park and did not return.

In addition:

* An email was sent to PaybyPhone Support at 1020 on 17/09/2021, requesting the correct car park number and advice on how to pay (should payment be required for the interim period while the in-person payment was being attempted). PaybyPhone support supplied a different car park number for ADDRESS, suggesting that the in-person signage was indeed incorrect, but stated that no payment could be made for this short period several hours earlier, and instead to contact Manchester City Council.

* At 1127 on 17/09/2021, a phone call was made to Manchester City Council to also discuss the inability to pay and offer any potential resolution for the time spent in the car park determining this. The person on the phone stated that there was no problem if no paper ticket had been placed on the car, and that no payment would be necessary.

As per the above, many reasonable steps were taken regarding the vehicle's 'parking' on ADDRESS on 16/09/2021, when the only time it spent at the car park was the time it took to realise that no payments were possible due to inadequate signage. I therefore reasonably request that the PCN is voided.

Coupon-mad

 UK Car Park Management Ltd who manage a car park owned by Manchester City Council. 

Unlikely.  Are you sure that The Council control it?

Maybe it's leased out to a business who contracted UKCPM.

UKCPM don't have Council contracts and can't run Local Authority car parks as if they are private land.  PPCs are also not allowed to run car parks for Councils using ANPR cameras because that's not allowed for LAs.

This will have nothing to do with the Council.

The stated charge was £170. I have no idea what the original charge was.

£100.

Have you read the NEWBIES thread second post, all about pre-action stage (LBCs from Gladstones, etc) and then how to win in court?  This is a perfectly winnable case at small claims, for you, because your wife did not accept the contract, and left promptly:

* The vechicle entered the car park at 1944, and departed 6 minutes later at 1950 because parking could not be purchased.

* Parking could not be purchased due to inadequate signage at the ADDRESS car park. The car park number (required to pay) was stated as 12345 on the signage, but this number was not recognised on the PayByPhone website nor on the PayByPhone App.

* Therefore, it was determined that payment was impossible, and subsequently the vehicle immediately departed the ADDRESS car park and did not return.

she was only parked for 6 minutes while trying to pay, but I assume this was 16 minutes after reading on this forum.

The photos will show you, when you get a SAR, as the NEWBIES thread tells you.  It could be she was only there 6 minutes because this rogue industry only allow 5 minutes, even including the time trying to download an app or pay.  Not enough time to also leave!

 Any Judge will accept your side.  No worries.  No risk.  See NEWBIES thread.

Ricky116

Coupon-mad said:
Unlikely.  Are you sure that The Council control it?

Maybe it's leased out to a business who contracted UKCPM.

UKCPM don't have Council contracts and can't run Local Authority car parks as if they are private land.  PPCs are also not allowed to run car parks for Councils using ANPR cameras because that's not allowed for LAs.

This will have nothing to do with the Council.

Hmm, that's interesting. The email I have from the PayByPhone people from the morning after states:

I would advise you to contact parking owners directly to check if they will accept the late payment as they are in control of the parking regulations. 

Location 83140 - TRAVIS STREET, is managed by Manchester Council, you can contact them directly on 0161 234 5000.

The car park was Travis Street in Manchester City Center. I'm not sure of the ins-and-outs of the ownership, but I guess if things progress I will need to be.

Have you read the NEWBIES thread second post, all about pre-action stage (LBCs from Gladstones, etc) and then how to win in court? This is a perfectly winnable case at small claims, for you, because your wife did not accept the contract, and left promptly:

Yep, I will follow through with this now. My only issue was that the NEWBIES guide says that 'plan b' after contacting the landowner is to contact the PPC to appeal, but I am not able to do that. Ideally I would like to avoid court (as my wife gets extremely clinically anxious about anything like this and is also 30 weeks pregnant) which would potentially be straightforward if an appeal would be accepted. Hence my post.

Thanks!

KeithP

Ricky116 said:

2. If it must be defended in court, would I be able to do the defence entirely on behalf of my wife (I am more than willing to defend until the end), or must she appear in court (this will not happen)?

Throughout your opening post you say things like "I received a Debt Recovery Plus letter" and "I have now received a Letter Before Claim". 
That indicates to me that you are the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Is that right?

If this case ever gets as far as court, then if the driver's identity has never been disclosed, then you will be the Defendant. There appears to be no risk that your wife will have to appear in court so if push comes to shove it looks like you will be defending yourself, not your wife.

Ricky116

KeithP said:

Ricky116 said:

2. If it must be defended in court, would I be able to do the defence entirely on behalf of my wife (I am more than willing to defend until the end), or must she appear in court (this will not happen)?

Throughout your opening post you say things like "I received a Debt Recovery Plus letter" and "I have now received a Letter Before Claim". 
That indicates to me that you are the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Is that right?

If this case ever gets as far as court, then if the driver's identity has never been disclosed, then you will be the Defendant. There appears to be no risk that your wife will have to appear in court so if push comes to shove it looks like you will be defending yourself, not your wife.

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. I guess my thinking is that I would indeed be the defendant, and I understand that a defence is mounted in the third person, e.g., 'the defendant entered the car park at x'.

But would that also be the case in court? For example, would I respond "the defendant entered the car park at x" in response, in person, to a question in court being "when did you enter the car park?". 

(I am aware this is a bit too much to be thinking about now, but I'm not sure how this works!)

KeithP

You would be saying things like "the driver did this" and the driver saw that".

There is no need for the driver's identity to ever be disclosed.

But as you say, that's a little way off.

For now you need to determine who exactly is going to sue you and you appear to have done that.
You have mentioned UKCPM and indeed Google Street View confirms that they are running that car park.

Coupon-mad

 I guess my thinking is that I would indeed be the defendant, 

If you are the person they are writing to, then yes.

 The email I have from the PayByPhone people from the morning after states:

I would advise you to contact parking owners directly to check if they will accept the late payment as they are in control of the parking regulations. 

Location 83140 - TRAVIS STREET, is managed by Manchester Council, you can contact them directly on 0161 234 5000.

I think PayByPhone have inadvertently misadvised you because that's talking about the on street parking on the Street itself, surely.

This car park IS NOT going to be run/owned/controlled by the Council if ex-clampers like UKCPM are infesting it.

1505grandad

" I do not have a POPLA reference number or anything like that."

Also for future reference UKCPM are IPC AoS members so no POPLA  involved.

Ricky116

Hi,

I posted here some time ago. Quick recap: I received a PCN from UKCPM. The photos show an 11 minute stay last year (not 6 minutes as was thought before the SAR results). Gladstones sent a LBC, I sent a SAR to UKCPM and emailed Gladstones to hold while the SAR was actioned. Gladstones have 're-activated' my case and are again demanding payment.

Gladstones responded to my hold-email with:

The charge was issued as vehicle registration __ was not registered to park at the site. As this term was breached the charge was issued correctly. When entering the site, you agree to the terms and conditions stipulated by signage at the site. As your vehicle was observed contravening the site rules you incurred the charge. If you were unsure of the terms and conditions you ought to have refrained from parking or sought alternative parking.

I am therefore preparing for a future defence.

I have a two main reasons that I don't believe I should have to pay the PCN, both of which are true and legitimate. But I am not sure if including both of them distracts from the validity of either, so I am looking for advice:

1. An attempt was made to pay for parking, but this could not be completed and so the vehicle departed the car park. The process of entering, reviewing, attempting payments, and leaving, took 11 minutes. No contract was therefore made. The reasons the attempts failed were:
    1.1 Difficulty on the day when attempting to use the website and app on a mobile device in order to pay. (This is true, but perhaps too vague for a defence?)
    1.2 The driver of the vehicle is adamant that the parking number on the signage was incorrect, and so the car park number was repeatedly not recognised on-line.
    1.3 Assuming that the signage was correct, then difficulty in reading the signage at night would be a reasonable argument here.
    1.4 I have since discovered that the driver may have understood the large heading on the signage "Pay by Mobile" to be referring to the "PaybyPhone" service, when the car park is actually managed by the "JustPark" payment service. This is potentially why the parking number was not being recognised and payment could not be made. A PaybyPhone service is offered on the same road, across the street.
    1.5 As an additional point to prove that attempts were made, I have email records to paybyphone and the landowner to query how to pay (but I now believe these emails have no relationship with the car park). I am not sure if this is relevant, it simply backs up the veracity of the payment-difficulty claim.

2. The terms and conditions were never agreed to, and the vehicle left.
    2.1 The standard 'Beavis' argument about fine print, volume of text, and so on, meaning that 11 minutes should be considered a reasonable time frame to enter, read and consider the terms and conditions, and leave. I have 'day-time' photos to show that the signage could not be reasonably reviewed before entering (from the road). I am not sure if night-time photos would improve this defence (?).
    2.2 The "consideration period" (as part of their own code of practice) which was afforded to the driver of the vehicle was therefore insufficient at the car park. 

Considering the above, is defending on both points a good idea, or should I just rely on the latter? I am concerned that an admission that payment was attempted (but failed) imply that the terms and conditions were agreed to? 

As I have never communicated with UKCPM or Gladstones, my intention is to indicate that I am disputing the claim due to the salient points above (written with less information, more concisely) as a reply to the Gladstones email, and request that they not waste time following this to court. And then no further correspondence as I await a court claim if they decide to continue.

Thanks for any thoughts. 

EDIT: I have never identified the driver. Though I do not know how this helps me, at this stage.

Coupon-mad

Yes, respond to Gladstones with a robust reply as seen in other threads.

Considering the above, is defending on both points a good idea,

Yes.  As part of our template defence.