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

yellowstickers

All at Coop store and HQ claiming they are unable to cancel the fine. How can I persuade them otherwise?

Grizebeck

They can its in their contracts
Oh and ignore any letters from TNC/CIS debt collectors

yellowstickers

Who exactly would be able to deliver the instruction? All I have spoken with to date seem woefully underqualified!

Fruitcake

It is not a fine. Calling it such gives it a air of legitimacy that it does not have, and if it comes to a court claim, using that word might convince the judge that the PPC is an, honest, upstanding pillar of the community who is upholding civil contract law and that you knew it to be a breach of contract issued by an authority.

If the store manager won't help then complain to the CEO.

You are correct that normally an IAS appeal is futile, but it might be worth a go, but you would need to see what the IPC CoP says about grace/consideration periods first.

What did the PCN actually say was the reason for issuing it in the first place?

yellowstickers

@Fruitcake the original PCN was issued due to the failure to disembark with child in tow within the aforedescribed 3 minutes 1 second elapse, instead electing to leave said bay and not engage in contract after this time. I suppose it all hinges on whether a judge would agree that this were a dilatory or indeed reasonable consideration period; can't see the commercial impact being anything other than disastrous, however, when it hits the local press.

Fruitcake

Have you got/can you get photos of the signs to see what they say? Does the wording say that a child must exit the vehicle when stopped in a gimmick bay? If it doesn't then there was no breach of Ts and Cs.
In any case the vehicle wasn't parked because the driver had gone to read the signs before deciding to leave the site.

See what others say, but depending on what the signs say it may be worth making an IAS appeal. 

Coupon-mad

yellowstickers said:

@Fruitcake the original PCN was issued due to the failure to disembark with child in tow within the aforedescribed 3 minutes 1 second elapse, instead electing to leave said bay and not engage in contract after this time. I suppose it all hinges on whether a judge would agree that this were a dilatory or indeed reasonable consideration period; can't see the commercial impact being anything other than disastrous, however, when it hits the local press.

If you are talking about NPE at Earlham House, then that "scam" has been all over the press for years, including petitions to remove NPE and a Councillor writing a letter of complaint to the Government.

We have threads galore about NPE at Earlham if it is that location, including people with children in the parent & child bays.

B789

Fruitcake said:

Does the wording say that a child must exit the vehicle when stopped in a gimmick bay? If it doesn't then there was no breach of Ts and Cs.

If only it DID say that… everyone is a “child” of someone. Anyone could park there without breaching that term. 

yellowstickers

B789 said:

Fruitcake said:

Does the wording say that a child must exit the vehicle when stopped in a gimmick bay? If it doesn't then there was no breach of Ts and Cs.

If only it DID say that… everyone is a “child” of someone. Anyone could park there without breaching that term. 

The PCN specifies 'child under 12' - I wonder how they ascertain this? Do they ask for proof of ID?

yellowstickers

Coupon-mad said:

yellowstickers said:

@Fruitcake the original PCN was issued due to the failure to disembark with child in tow within the aforedescribed 3 minutes 1 second elapse, instead electing to leave said bay and not engage in contract after this time. I suppose it all hinges on whether a judge would agree that this were a dilatory or indeed reasonable consideration period; can't see the commercial impact being anything other than disastrous, however, when it hits the local press.

If you are talking about NPE at Earlham House, then that "scam" has been all over the press for years, including petitions to remove NPE and a Councillor writing a letter of complaint to the Government.

We have threads galore about NPE at Earlham if it is that location, including people with children in the parent & child bays.

This was in Stowmarket, at a different location that it transpires has been subject to numerous similar reports