PCN issued at Matisse road Hounslow by private parking solutions (London) limited - appeal rejected

wajira27

Hi All,

I was issued a PCN by private parking solutions limited (PPS) on 14th March. This PCN relates to an incident took place on Saturday March 11th on Matisse road, Hounslow. PPS have rejected my appeal without addressing any of the points I raised. 

I disputed the PCN issued by PPS on below grounds.

1.    I did not see or notice the “No parking sign” before entering the parking bay. So my actions were not deliberate and I was trying to attend to my son due to a medical emergency situation he was facing. I moved in and out of the parking bay within 1.5 minutes (as detailed below). As I didn’t see the parking notice, I did not enter into any contract with PPS or breach of any contract.

2.    The parking sign is not clear in reference to the parking bay as there is a wide pedestrian way (public foot path) between the parking bay and the notice. Also all the details in small letters on the notice not legible from the parking bay due the angle and the distance between notice and parking bay. (PPS should allow adequate time to observe the notice, read and understand the full details to make a informed decision) 

3.    I am challenging this PCN on technical grounds as the location and the description of the incident is incorrect as stated on PCN. Therefore I am not liable for any charge under road traffic act 2004 and any subsequent updates. 

4.    The actions and conduct of the PPS parking warden intimidated and delayed me in my response and moving my vehicle away from the parking bay.

I have explained each point above in detail below

I had to pull into the parking bay due to a medical emergency my son was facing. My son is a child and was quite unwell on that day. My son is suffering from a long-term Chronic condition.  When he is in pain or discomfort someone needs to attend to him soon as possible to carry out medical procedure or provide comfort. This is the reason I had to make a quick stop to check on my son as he complained of severe pain/discomfort and was poorly on that day. As this is a very busy and narrow road, hence the reason I moved into a vacant space without stopping on the road for safety as I was attending to my son.

 

My second point - The “No parking notice” is not clear that it refers to the parking bay in question. The notice is on a wall and there is a wide pedestrian way (Public foot path) between the notice and the parking bay. As is the case notice is some distance away from where I stopped and it’s not noticeable straight away due to the angle and distance. Also a large content of details is in small letters and not legible from the parking bay and even more difficult to read from inside a vehicle (You can refer to PPS Pictures - I have attached). When I pulled into the bay (reversed parked) notice was probably obstructed by the vehicle parked parallel to me and in the other parking bay in the front.  Also PPS cannot expect drivers to read notices on the side of the road while driving which is unsafe. Given where the notice is displayed, for me to make an informed decision, someone needs to notice that there is a notice on the wall, then come out of the vehicle and walk up to the notice to read the full content of the notice to make an informed decision. This process will take at least take few minutes, at least 4-5 minutes should be allowed. But PPS have not given any grace period or a reasonable time period for me to observe the notice and act accordingly.. As per PPS time stamped photographic evidence, I was only there for 1 minute 34 seconds. 

Also PPS didn't make adequate provisions to show or distinguish this parking bay from other parking bays around the area (it is not obvious or not marked adequately to highlight that this is private land). I couldn’t distinguish this parking space from other residential parking spaces around the area which are free for parking after 12.30pm on Saturdays. As this parking bay is located between a public road and a public footpath and not next to any private land or in a separate private premises/car park it is impossible to detect that this is a private land.

 

My 3rd point - The location and description of the incident appears to be incorrect as stated in the PCN. It is quite important for PPS to get the location and the description correct for a PCN to be valid. Therefore I am not liable for any charge under road traffic act 2004 and any subsequent updates. On this ground this PCN should be cancelled. The location of the incident is named as Holloway Street TW3 Zone A&B, but clearly the incident took place on Matisse Road, Hounslow (as marked on attached map) with a dead end (No through road). Vehicles cannot enter Holloway Street TW3 (it’s a pedestrian only street) and no through road to any other roads (See picture provided). Also I cannot see any signage on site or surrounding area indicating a parking area marked as Holloway Street Zones A& B even checking few time after the incident.  PPS letter also states that I entered a car park and parked in a no parking area. This again is incorrect as I did not enter any car park as explained above and it’s a parking bay along the Matisse road which is a public road. PPS ignored this point without addressing at all. If PPS can refer to Matisse road as Holloway Street in their PCN which are clearly two different locations, they can refer to any road around the area as Holloway Street in my opinion. 

  

My fourth point is -

I was distracted and delayed by the parking warden’s actions and behavior. PPS parking warden’s (whom I didn’t recognise until after the event) actions intimidated and confused me and delayed me for at least 40 – 50 seconds removing the car from the parking bay. I noticed him instantly getting out of an unmarked vehicle parked parallel to me on the other side of the road and started taking photographs of my car in an intimidating and suspicious manner from all angles. He got into action soon I moved into the parking bay and did not give any reason or indicate that he is a parking warden. To add to my suspicion he was trying to disguise me to believe he was doing something else. Also he was dressed in plain black clothes (evidence can be provided) and I had no way of identifying him as a parking warden or what he was up to. I am curious to find out BPA guide lines on Parking warden’s dress code or any indication/ badge that they have to display for public to identify that they represent a parking company. As you can imagine I was quite terrified and confused the way he came across and by his actions. For a moment I was trying assess the situation as to what is going on as a normal person would do in such a circumstance. All this happened simultaneous and quite quickly. All this time I was in the driving seat and I didn’t not recognise him to be a parking warden. I believe actions by PPS warden is deliberate and done consciously to confuse and intimidate innocent people so that they can benefit from that distraction they cause.  

 

Despite as explained above I moved the car as quickly as possible as I realised something is not right. The parking warden from PPS stood there and photographed the situation from the moment I moved the car into the parking bay and until I moved it out. Therefore PPS should have information to verify how long I was in the parking bay.

I hoped as a reputable company and a member of BPA, the PPS would allow a reasonable time (grace period) to any uninformed driver who unknowingly enter this parking bay to observe the no parking notice (which is not noticeable straight away and other reasons as explained above), understand it and remove the car away safely. As explained above, if not for the intimidating and suspicious behaviour of PPS parking warden which distracted me, I would have removed the car much quicker after checking if my son was OK. 

Given this is a genuine oversight caused due the situation I faced with my son on that day as explained and due to the actions of the PPS parking warden which put me under lot of stress and confusion contributed to delay in my response, still I have acted quickly and removed my car. Given all this I am sure there should be at least 3-5 minutes grace period for such situations before they issue a PCN.

PPS have now rejected my appeal and given me a POPLA reference, even though i don't have much faith on POPLA, i am planning to follow the process. just wanted to check my points above are OK or need add more details ? 

any help or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

 

 

B789

Hi @wajira27. Thank you for starting a separate thread for your PCN.

Besides your technical points above, you also have the Equalities Act 2010 as another, very powerful tool to use, particularly if your child is disabled in any way due to the long-term chronic condition. Also, attending to an emergency of this nature, could be construed as a small vissicitude.

Don't hold out all your hope on POPLA. Even if you lose at POPLA, it doesn't matter as 99% of these cases are defeated once they get to court claim stage by either winning or being discontinued because of the robust defence that are advised on here.

As a matter of interest, did you have any communication with the "warden" who you mention? Was the "warden" made aware of the emergency or that your child is disabled or had any protected characteristics that the EA2010 covers?

B789

Does your child come under Section 6 (1) of the act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1

wajira27

Hi, my son is suffering from asthma and chronic exzima. He is on continuous treatment for many years now. He carries a epi pen all the time. Often his skin is damaged and get infected and is in severe pain and discomfort due to swollen lymph nodes. 
I can produce a doctors letter as evidence.

wajira27

B789 said:

Hi @wajira27. Thank you for starting a separate thread for your PCN.

Besides your technical points above, you also have the Equalities Act 2010 as another, very powerful tool to use, particularly if your child is disabled in any way due to the long-term chronic condition. Also, attending to an emergency of this nature, could be construed as a small vissicitude.

Don't hold out all your hope on POPLA. Even if you lose at POPLA, it doesn't matter as 99% of these cases are defeated once they get to court claim stage by either winning or being discontinued because of the robust defence that are advised on here.

As a matter of interest, did you have any communication with the "warden" who you mention? Was the "warden" made aware of the emergency or that your child is disabled or had any protected characteristics that the EA2010 covers?

No I didn't speak to the warden, I was observing them after the event and they were quite arrogant.  I am sure this area is a very lucrative ground for them.  They catch many innocent drivers per hour!

B789

wajira27 said:
No I didn't speak to the warden, I was observing them after the event and they were quite arrogant.  I am sure this area is a very lucrative ground for them.  They catch many innocent drivers per hour!

I was trying to establish whether you had mentioned to the "warden" about your emergency due to your child's illness (disability?). Are you just saying that the "warden" looked arrogant? Did the "warden" actually place the NtD or PCN on your windscreen?

What does the PCN actually state as the reason for the charge? Is it a "Parking" Charge Notice?

I am assuming you are referring to Private Parking Solutions London Ltd when you say PPC. According to the BPA reference to them, they only issue tickets and don't use ANPR.

I think you may have read on the other thread about the person who lost their POPLA appeal for stopping in the same spot as you. If I remember correctly, the tea-boy at POPLA who was on duty that day "assessed" that a contract had been formed by the forbidding sign. An impossibility. Just goes to show how unreliable POPLA are.

You will prepare your POPLA appeal based on your technical points and also do some research on other cases where stopping to attend to an emergency or a small vicissitude for a short period is not considered parking. You will probably need to highlight the fact that their PCN is probably claiming a breach of contract. In order to make a contract there have to be three things... an offer, an acceptance and a consideration. If the sign is forbidding, then there is no offer. If nothing was offered, then there was nothing to accept. Had the sign offered something which you could accept, it would be the consideration. The consideration would normally be any item (such as a time period granted for parking) that is agreed upon by both parties to have a value that may be exchanged in a contract. Only if you breached the terms of that contract, would you then be liable, for example, a charge which would need to be very obvious in the terms of the contract.

Explaining it in simplistic terms as above to the POPLA assessor/teaboy/cleaner, is probably necessary as we have already seen them call a forbidding sign a contract that can be breached. If it fails at POPLA, never mind. It wouldn't be a surprise and you then move on to a possible court claim, which is much better as it can now be defended by an independent arbitrator.

Also, if your child condition can be considered as a protected characteristic, it may be worthwhile informing PPS about it, why you needed to stop because of it and why they now need discontinue because they have been made aware of it and continuing would be a breach of the law.

Coupon-mad

You need to also attach evidence to support your points, which do seem strong for POPLA if supported by photos, etc.

Remove this phrase:

"Given this is a genuine oversight caused"

There was no oversight by you!

wajira27

Coupon-mad said:

You need to also attach evidence to support your points, which do seem strong for POPLA if supported by photos, etc.

Remove this phrase:

"Given this is a genuine oversight caused"

There was no oversight by you!

Yes I will remove this. Thanks 

wajira27

B789 said:

wajira27 said:
No I didn't speak to the warden, I was observing them after the event and they were quite arrogant.  I am sure this area is a very lucrative ground for them.  They catch many innocent drivers per hour!

I was trying to establish whether you had mentioned to the "warden" about your emergency due to your child's illness (disability?). Are you just saying that the "warden" looked arrogant? Did the "warden" actually place the NtD or PCN on your windscreen?

What does the PCN actually state as the reason for the charge? Is it a "Parking" Charge Notice?

I am assuming you are referring to Private Parking Solutions London Ltd when you say PPC. According to the BPA reference to them, they only issue tickets and don't use ANPR.

I think you may have read on the other thread about the person who lost their POPLA appeal for stopping in the same spot as you. If I remember correctly, the tea-boy at POPLA who was on duty that day "assessed" that a contract had been formed by the forbidding sign. An impossibility. Just goes to show how unreliable POPLA are.

You will prepare your POPLA appeal based on your technical points and also do some research on other cases where stopping to attend to an emergency or a small vicissitude for a short period is not considered parking. You will probably need to highlight the fact that their PCN is probably claiming a breach of contract. In order to make a contract there have to be three things... an offer, an acceptance and a consideration. If the sign is forbidding, then there is no offer. If nothing was offered, then there was nothing to accept. Had the sign offered something which you could accept, it would be the consideration. The consideration would normally be any item (such as a time period granted for parking) that is agreed upon by both parties to have a value that may be exchanged in a contract. Only if you breached the terms of that contract, would you then be liable, for example, a charge which would need to be very obvious in the terms of the contract.

Explaining it in simplistic terms as above to the POPLA assessor/teaboy/cleaner, is probably necessary as we have already seen them call a forbidding sign a contract that can be breached. If it fails at POPLA, never mind. It wouldn't be a surprise and you then move on to a possible court claim, which is much better as it can now be defended by an independent arbitrator.

Also, if your child condition can be considered as a protected characteristic, it may be worthwhile informing PPS about it, why you needed to stop because of it and why they now need discontinue because they have been made aware of it and continuing would be a breach of the law.

Yes I was referring to private parking solutions London Ltd as PPS in short. 
PCN came in the post after few days from the incident. 
They have these people dressed in plain black clothes with mobile phones ( I have pictures) often hiding inside vehicle and when someone stop in one of these places they come out and take photographs. 
After the incident , I wanted to get to the bottom of it  so I was observing what they were doing. 
They took pictures of two other vehicles in front of me within space of few minutes. 
One drive was a poor delivery driver who was delivering some timber, he just moved his vehicle to avoid blocking the road and these guys quickly took photos of his vehicle.  He saw them and explained to them that he was delivering goods and move the vehicle for few minutes to avoid blocking the road,  but he was ignored.  I spoke to this driver and explained what happened to me.

What they are saying on the parking ticket - 

We have issued the parking charge to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner where by the driver became liable for a parking charge at Zone A+B holloway street , Hounslow TW3 that we are authorised to manage on 11th March 2023 at 12.55pm. The terms and conditions of parking on this private land set out on the sinage installed within the car park.
By parking within this car park the driver is bound to theses terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions. The reason we issued this PCN to the vehicle is as follows 
Parking in no parking area. 


I will expand on the details how the contract law works in my appeal to popla as you have explained above.I have added a picture of the parking sign as well FYI. I am drafting my appeal at the moment and I have about 10 more day until the deadline. 

I am not sure about my son's condition can be considered as protected.  What does "protected" mean?

Many thanks for your time and advice 

wajira27

wajira27 said:

Cyes i have gathered oupon-mad said:

You need to also attach evidence to support your points, which do seem strong for POPLA if supported by photos, etc.

Remove this phrase:

"Given this is a genuine oversight caused"

There was no oversight by you!

Yes I will remove this. Thanks 

Yes I have few pictures and also I have marked on a map where holloway street is and where matisse Road is and the parking bay where I stopped (on matisse road)
I also have a picture of matisse Road  "Road sign" showing dead end. And also holloway street road signs indicating no through road.
Also pictures of the parking warden - proof of their appearance. 
Also the vehicle they were in was parked on a double yellow line and partly obstructing the pedestrian way. Should I mention this as well? ( I have  a picture of this too)

Coupon-mad

All of it, all your evidence to POPLA.  Make it such uncomfortable reading for PPS London that they withdraw.

What you describe sounds EXACTLY like this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html?m=1