PCN from PCM for stopping 1 minute on double yellow lines

AmLou

Hi all,

I have received a PCN in the post for stopping for less than a minute on double yellow lines.
This took place in London and as far as I am aware according to LondonCouncils website, unless there is some kerb markings it is okay to stop briefly on double yellow lines. I cannot post the link here unfortunately.

So I stopped the car to pick up someone for literally 1 minute, the car was not left unattended, someone was in the car, and the engine was still running.
But the traffic warden took some pictures from a distance, he didn't approach us and we did not even notice them taking the picture and we received a PCN in the post some time later.
They claim that the car was "parked" although their photo evidence are just 20 seconds apart so basically they just prove that the car was there for 20 seconds but not longer. There are no close up pictures of the windscreen so no-one can tell whether there is someone in the car or not. And they are also posting a picture of the sign on the road (I believe a private road) which explains the parking rules place in the area, but again the car was not parked at all.

I have initially replied to them to tell them the car was not parked but only stopped there briefly but they replied in a generic way that the car did not comply to the parking rules and the £100 was due. Then we never heard back from them until we received a Letter before claim in the post by ShakespeareMartineau threatening of Legal Action.

The road in question is apparently a private road and the PCN was issue by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (so not by the Council) again with the claim that the car was "parked within a restricted area".

I am posting two pictures one of the area and one of the signage that is used as evidence (and says nothing about the rules for stopping on double yellow lines).

So my understanding that that it was okay generally in London to stop very briefly to pick up passengers as long as there were no marking on the kerb which is not the case here.

Also the sign they are posting is only mentioning parking and the car was not parked and the picture evidence times only shows that the car was there for 20/25 seconds and no longer.
Finally I was always told that private companies like PCM could only fine car for parking problems and that the Council was responsible for cars which were improperly parked or stopped on double yellow lines but I am not sure how things would work here as I believe this is a private road?

Thank you to anyone who could help.

knightstyle

This forum is for private parking battles so it will be best if you go to. 
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60
Set up an email that is not hotmail for it.   Good luck, it looks like an easy one to get stopped.

Umkomaas

If the parking charge is from PCM UK, then this is certainly a private parking charge (not a council penalty), and this MSE forum is absolutely the relevant forum to help. 

@AmLou, please read the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, which tells you how to deal with a court claim, including examples of robust responses to LBCs. 

Many PPCs use low rent solicitors to send out LBCs in the hope that most motorists will be frightened into paying there and then. If you stick it out, while an actual court claim might follow, the forum will guide you through the process. Once the forum is involved in helping motorists to defend claims, not that many go through to reach a hearing, and of those that do get that far, not that many motorists lose.

Coupon-mad

AmLou said:

Hi all,

I have received a PCN in the post for stopping for less than a minute on double yellow lines.
This took place in London and as far as I am aware according to LondonCouncils website, unless there is some kerb markings it is okay to stop briefly on double yellow lines. I cannot post the link here unfortunately.

So I stopped the car to pick up someone for literally 1 minute, the car was not left unattended, someone was in the car, and the engine was still running.
But the traffic warden took some pictures from a distance, he didn't approach us and we did not even notice them taking the picture and we received a PCN in the post some time later.
They claim that the car was "parked" although their photo evidence are just 20 seconds apart so basically they just prove that the car was there for 20 seconds but not longer. There are no close up pictures of the windscreen so no-one can tell whether there is someone in the car or not. And they are also posting a picture of the sign on the road (I believe a private road) which explains the parking rules place in the area, but again the car was not parked at all.

I have initially replied to them to tell them the car was not parked but only stopped there briefly but they replied in a generic way that the car did not comply to the parking rules and the £100 was due. Then we never heard back from them until we received a Letter before claim in the post by Shakespeare Martineau threatening of Legal Action.

The road in question is apparently a private road and the PCN was issue by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (so not by the Council) again with the claim that the car was "parked within a restricted area".

I am posting two pictures one of the area and one of the signage that is used as evidence (and says nothing about the rules for stopping on double yellow lines).

So my understanding that that it was okay generally in London to stop very briefly to pick up passengers as long as there were no marking on the kerb which is not the case here.

Also the sign they are posting is only mentioning parking and the car was not parked and the picture evidence times only shows that the car was there for 20/25 seconds and no longer.
Finally I was always told that private companies like PCM could only fine car for parking problems and that the Council was responsible for cars which were improperly parked or stopped on double yellow lines but I am not sure how things would work here as I believe this is a private road?

Thank you to anyone who could help.

Stay here, not on pepipoo.

There was no traffic warden.

They would never win this at court! Laughable.

Reply to Shakespeare Martineau as per the LBC section of the NEWBIES thread.

AmLou

Thank you all, very helpful. I am preparing a reply to the LBC following the information on the Newbies thread.

In my reply, should I mention that PCM UK had no authority to issue a fine on double yellow lines (although I believe it is a private road but it is a bit unclear)? Or that there was no signage relating to a vehicle stopping briefly on double yellow lines but that their signage relates only to parking terms and conditions?

OR since the letter of claim and any correspondence relates to my vehicle "being parked" shall I only say that the vehicle was not parked (because they are only referring to parking and their client's terms and conditions only about parking too) and that they failed to evidence that the vehicle was parked? Their evidence only shows that the vehicle was stationary on the road for 20 seconds and that it does not evidence parking.

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP.

I don't think you need to go into huge detail when responding to the LBC. You don't want to tip the PPC off such that they beef up their claim if/when they issue it. In my opinion, you just need to state that the vehicle was not parked, but as shown by the PPC's own evidence, it was stopped briefly in order to pick up a passenger, which is not prohibited by the parking terms displayed on the signs, therefore no breach of contract occurred.

If/when you get the claim form, you need to include all the points you mention above about the signage, plus the following.

Whilst parking is not permitted on DYLs on a public road, dropping off/picking up is a specifically permitted activity. It is reasonable that the man on the Clapham omnibus (the average reasonable person) would believe DYLs on private land have the same meaning.
Have a look at Jopson v Homeguard, case number B9GF0A9E, where the judge stated that dropping off/ picking up of goods or people is not parking. This was an appeal case so is persuasive on the lower courts.
The transcript is readily available online.

Coupon-mad

AmLou said:

Thank you all, very helpful. I am preparing a reply to the LBC following the information on the Newbies thread.

In my reply, should I mention that PCM UK had no authority to issue a fine on double yellow lines (although I believe it is a private road but it is a bit unclear)? Or that there was no signage relating to a vehicle stopping briefly on double yellow lines but that their signage relates only to parking terms and conditions?

OR since the letter of claim and any correspondence relates to my vehicle "being parked" shall I only say that the vehicle was not parked (because they are only referring to parking and their client's terms and conditions only about parking too) and that they failed to evidence that the vehicle was parked? Their evidence only shows that the vehicle was stationary on the road for 20 seconds and that it does not evidence parking.

Just send what the NEWBIES thread shows to send for LBC stage and deny the car was parked and left for a parking period.

AmLou

Okay will do that. Thank you both!

AmLou

Hi guys,
So after my reply to their LBC I never heard back.
And now I have just received another letter of claim, this time from a different Law firm, but in relation to the same PCN.

Obviously it creates a lot of confusion as to which firm is representing them for me, but I wonder if they are at all allowed to issue different letter of claims from different law firms?

Shall I reply to that one as well?

It's just such a waste of my time since they have ignored my first response anyway...

Gr1pr

Yes they can change horses 

If its an LoC giving you 30 days notice, respond by email as seen in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

Presumably Gladstone's sent it. ?

Coupon-mad

It'll be Gladstones this time.

Same advice as before.

Shakespeare Martineau were never likely to sue. Gs might but so what?!  This is your moment to benefit from real dispute resolution with an independent Judge.