PCN National Parking Enforcement 3 minutes 1 second in a parent and child bay with child in back..

yellowstickers

patient_dream said:

yellowstickers said:

Out of interest, what is the deciding factor in those roughly 5% of successful instances? As I say, mine were clearly not even read, so it must be as clear cut as the recipient having never owned a car, or the nonexistence of the suggested car park 

 what is the deciding factor in those roughly 5% of successful instances?
SIMPLE ... The IPC/IAS/GLADSTONES want their money scammer members to make money

 You need to understand this scam in more detail.
It all starts with Gladstones solicitors, messrs Davies and Hurley.
For some reason the government were stupid enough to give them ATA status which means they could recruit private parking money scammers and give them access to the DVLA database
This was called the IPC and the appeals service they called the IAS

So, what happened is the IPC members would reject appeals and the second appeal service being the IAS would also reject the appeal.
In the shadows, waiting to pounce was Gladstones solicitors who then went on to sue people.

This mega scam was exposed by the Parking Prankster and all of a sudden, Davies and Hurley split, Davies being Gladstones and Hurley being the IPC ...... A MEGA SCAM designed to extort money from the motorist

And, the government know about this scam yet fail to terminate these money scammers

The Co-op has history of employing money scammers. A few years ago using another PPC, they terminated them. What happening then was a disgrace ...... the PPC sued CO-OP staff members

Does the Co-op have such short memories yet they still take on money scammers
In your case, they have admitted the signs are not suitable as in most Co-op parking signs

This alone is a big problem for the Co-op and indeed for National Parking and any stupid legal who gets involved (probably Gladstones)
One would assume that the Co-op knows that you can  include them in any court claim as witness

Best thing the Co-op can do is terminate National Parking as it's not just shop lifters that are losing them money

Your MP is a good source, if they are Tory, to raise this blatant scam to the Dept of levelling up
Every Tory does not know if they will have a job in a year

This is fascinating! Do you happen to know which PC this was that went on to turn sour?

yellowstickers

Coupon-mad said:

You had a call from the Co-op trying to fob you off because they are clueless about the legal position?

Yes, indeed - Head of Member Services no less! Not only this, he was highly unimpressed by my cc'ing 11 senior employees in order to try to garner a response. Deeply, deeply unimpressive and confounding that he could occupy such a, one would imagine crucial, role. He was most concerned with who I am, and kept trying to ascertain more about me - "are you a practicing solicitor? Are you related to the recipient"? I maintained my reply that this was immaterial, and that the victim had authorised me to speak on their behalf. The GDPR aspect was a stark revelation, to say the least!

yellowstickers

It should be simple: the law says they have to have an entrance sign, and at the time of issuing THE PCN, they didn't. This voids any purported contract ab initio. How can they possibly think this is going to end well for them?

Coupon-mad

The law doesn't say there must be an entrance sign.  There is no such law.

And this doesn't void the contract.

Be careful because saying the wrong thing to a Judge can lose a case.  You need the right ducks in a row.  Don't say things are required 'by law' when they aren't, you could lose the goodwill of a Judge by getting carried away on a wrong tangent.

The Co-op's parking agent who sued staff and customers was Civil Enforcement Ltd.  

Info openly available with a quick Google:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/have-to-co-op-cut-deal-with-civil.html?m=1

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/co-op-confirm-they-have-not-cut-deal.html?m=1

We regulars know all about this but we don't know what happened with the supposed 'test cases' in Bristol.  It went very quiet and the Co-op changed their parking agent.

yellowstickers

To wit: the signs did not comply with the IPC CoP. The KADOE contract requires the parking company to meet the Code of Practice as a condition of proving reasonable cause. As such, if a breach of the Code of Practice can be demonstrated, reasonable cause would not be established. Furthermore, both the BPA and IPC Codes of Practice specify grace periods before and after the parking period commences. Sometimes motorists are issued parking charges that do not take this into account. If this is the case, then the parking company are not adhering to the KADOE contract which requires adherence to the CoP. If they have not adhered, then there would be no reasonable cause, and therefore a DPA breach.

How much can the victim expect to be paid, roughly?

Coupon-mad

The KADOE isn't the law.

I doubt you'll get anything but I wish you luck!

yellowstickers

Something interesting was posited today, based on the call of this week and earlier statements by the Co-op. They maintain a position that the driver should never have parked there, and instead used one of the many other available bays. However, at the time of issuing, the only signs advertising the purported terms and conditions were, short of seeing them and abandoning the vehicle to scrutinise them, visible only by entering one of the parent and child bays and stopping  on a serious note, though, there is every chance that an angle could be argued that this is deliberate entrapment - particularly when a driver realises in three minutes and one second that they have stopped contra them and the Co-op takes the commercial decision to uphold the PCN...

yellowstickers

Lengthy, out of the blue email today having previously been told that there would be no further response from the Co-op on the matter and its decision to uphold the issuing of the PCN, in which appeared the following:

Given the enforcement agency operates entirely independently of the Co-op, we cannot be held responsible for the issue of its fines. We have referred you to the agency’s appeals process which I understand you have done but without success nor the independent review body.  Having said that, whilst we cannot accept any responsibility for the issue of the fine or the circumstances on which it was issued, we would like to bring this matter to a conclusion. We are therefore willing in this instance to settle the outstanding debt with the enforcement agency, conditionally. 

What do you think? Take the offer and close the case?

porridgestation

As long as you pay nothing, take the offer. The conditions may be unfavourable, which you should at least be aware of before you make your decision. Either:

1. Co-Op secretly have the parking charge cancelled at no expense to them using an undisclosed clause in the their parking management contract.
2. Co-Op have to pay their own contracted private parking firm a breach of contract for someone parking on their own freehold, which is one of the most insane parking conclusions I've ever heard.

This may bring welcome change to the current setup if Co-Op expresses displeasure at the aggressiveness of their own contracted parking firm.

Fruitcake

yellowstickers said:

Lengthy, out of the blue email today having previously been told that there would be no further response from the Co-op on the matter and its decision to uphold the issuing of the PCN, in which appeared the following:

Given the enforcement agency operates entirely independently of the Co-op, we cannot be held responsible for the issue of its fines. We have referred you to the agency’s appeals process which I understand you have done but without success nor the independent review body.  Having said that, whilst we cannot accept any responsibility for the issue of the fine or the circumstances on which it was issued, we would like to bring this matter to a conclusion. We are therefore willing in this instance to settle the outstanding debt with the enforcement agency, conditionally. 

What do you think? Take the offer and close the case?

What fine?
What independent review body?

Co-oP seem to have learned nothing from their previous encounters with the unregulated private parking industry.

As for P & C bays, they are nothing but a gimmick in my opinion, and any signage referring to them is pure graffiti. Other opinions are available.