PCN received for parking in parent/child bay with children!

fluffy123

Hi all and hope everyone is well.

I was wondering if anybody could help with the following query as this is all new to me.

Yesterday, I received a 'notice to keeper' letter from Ocean Parking complete with parking charge of £100. This is the first such correspondence that I had received regarding anything along these lines although it claims to have written to me previously (nothing received in the post) offering a reduced amount if settled within 14 days. Again, this 'second' letter is the first correspondence I have had.

The PCN relates to the driver parking in a free shopping centre car park on a weekday morning at the start of January in a Parent/Child bay. This is quite ridiculous because at this stated time, two children (10 months & 4 years of age) were in the car and will have left the car with the driver and returned back to the car with the driver. Therefore, I am not quite sure where this 'evidence' suggests otherwise, although none is attached to the letter to be seen.

The PCN issued date was 3rd Jan at 09.32 and this letter, received yesterday, is dated 2nd February 2023 if that helps.

Happy to provide any further details if required but I assume I appeal this in writing/email?

Fruitcake

Does the NTK suggest a NTD might have been left on the windscreen at the time of the alleged event? The dates make me think this is a case of ghost ticketing where a NTD was put on the windscreen, photographed, then removed by some person or persons unknown.

Plan A is always for the vehicle keeper to complain to the landowner and their MP.

If that fails then the keeper should appeal using the template in blue text they will find in the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES using whatever appeal method is stated on the NTK, which is usually an appeal portal. The appeal should be sent unaltered from the keeper with no mention of who parked in the gimmick bay.

fluffy123

Thanks for the help. I've attached links to the letter and signage. Nothing I can spot although nothing was left on the windscreen upon returning to the car on the day.

Car had one car seat easily visible through the driver side passenger window and the other car seat was removed to attach to the pram base to visit the shopping centre and was put back into the car upon return shortly after. 

https://ibb.co/HFrpJ9d

https://ibb.co/wM7D4SX

https://ibb.co/h9B7RmV

The_Slithy_Tove

As fruitcake says, #1 is to complain to the landowner.

Not sure if we've seen a Parent & Child space case ever being take to court, as it would be extremely hard to prove. Think about it. The parking company has to prove a negative - that there were no children in the car - always hard. And it would mean them having to drag the minimum-wage parking attendant to the court of your choice to act as witness, who would need to swear about an incident that would be many, many months in the past, and probably without any contemporaneous notes or other evidence. That's not going to happen.

And it would have parallels with the infamous "VCS vs Ibbotson" case (this one for "leaving the site"), where VCS got into deep doo-doo with the judge.

fisherjim

Lets face it if there were 10 cars parked in parent and child bays it's well worth trying it on with all of them, chances are at least one will cave in at the first hurdle kerching not much to loose is there another add on scam!

Fruitcake

The NTK says they are claiming a NTD was left on the vehicle. Since it wasn't there when the driver returned it is as I suspected a case of ghost ticketing.

The PPC operative would have put the NTD on the vehicle then photographed it. At some point between then and when the driver returned, some person or persons unknown played a jolly jape and removed the NTD.
Can you think of a person or business that would benefit from the removal of the NTD?

Answers on a postcard please to Scammers Are Us. 

Activate Plan A first (a complaint from the keeper to the landowner and the keeper's MP). Point out that the parking company have admitted that a parking charge notice was left on the vehicle, but it was not there when the driver returned. State that you can only think of one company that could possibly benefit from this. Let the recipients do the working out themselves.

Plan B, appeal using the template in blue text from the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES. Add that there were children in the vehicle who left and returned with the driver, and put the PPC to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Mention the mystery of the disappearing NTD and ask them to investigate.

Complain to the BPA about the mystery of the disappearing NTD, again stating that you can only think of one company that would benefit from this, and ask them to investigate.

Also take photos of the signs adjacent to the gimmick bays and/or surface markings to see if they match.
For example, the iconography on the sign in your post above has a small person, a person who is possibly pregnant or has a wind-blown coat, and somebody pushing some ground penetrating radar apparatus.

Are the gimmick bays marked in exactly the same manner, or is the iconography different.

At my local Co-oP, the Gimmick bay icons on the parking signs differ from markings adjacent to a row of parking bays which in turn differ from the surface markings on the parking bays.
A driver would not know which is or isn't a gimmick bay because the bay markings are different to the ones on the main signs.

fisherjim

That signage just says that parent and child spaces are available, so what there are no further descriptions, explanations or restrictions attached to that it means absolutely nothing.

Fruitcake

fisherjim said:

That signage just says that parent and child spaces are available, so what there are no further descriptions, explanations or restrictions attached to that it means absolutely nothing.

Well spotted. There are no Ts and Cs surrounding the gimmick bays, only that the bays exist. There is no explanation of what would happen if you parked in a gimmick bay without a person having ground penetrating radar equipment.
There is no definition of a parent or child, so that found in an ordinary dictionary would apply as covered by section 69 of the CRA 2015.

I'll send my Lovely NN year old Cousin to park in a gimmick bay with her 90 year old dad. That satisfies the definition of a parent and child therefore no breach of Ts and Cs has occurred.

Half_way

Where is this "shopping centre"

Depending upon what you want to do, you could have some fun with this, and fight back,

Either which way if you did have children in the vehicle and they issued a parking charge notice as you have said, then you should attack it as a breach of GDPR , as they had no just cause to access and process your personal data

B789

It's this place: https://goo.gl/maps/H4RUy667vVrzciL1A

As you can see, the iconography on the parking places bears no resemblance to the iconography on the sign.

Aside from the idiotic proof the PPC has to provide to back up their lying enforcers, this has no chance of ever going to court... unless the PPC is managed by supreme morons who just love getting spanked in court.

patient_dream

B789 said:

Aside from the idiotic proof the PPC has to provide to back up their lying enforcers, this has no chance of ever going to court... unless the PPC is managed by supreme morons who just love getting spanked in court.

So right ,,,,,,, my words as well. 

We of course must remember that Ocean Parking is a BPA cowboy and the BPA must be very pleased they have another member who is hell bent on telling government they are not fir for purpose