Cardiff Marina - New Generation Parking Management

SLang1214

Coupon-mad said:

Nothing has changed re the advice already given, and of course you'd bother if it went to court.

New Generation Parking Management are a cinch to beat (as long as you avoided Cardiff court, but cross that bridge later).

Thank you. I'll proceed as advised so far. 

SLang1214

SLang1214 said:

Mikeh2001 said:

Did you confirm that the land is actually under "statutory control"? The information I found (albeit in a few minutes via Google) appeared inconclusive.

Just come off the phone with the Cardiff Marina office. According to them, the land for parking is private land and wouldn't come under the byelaws. I didn't I expect them to say any different to be honest. 

I also called the Cardiff Harbour Authority and they asked me to send over an email showing the land in question and they said they'd forward it to someone who might be able to confirm. On my email to them, I did highlight the definition of quay and how it says that a quay can include any pier, bridge,roadway or footway adjacent and affording access thereto. I'll confirm once I hear back.

The below is a google maps view of the land adjacent to the marina.

https://ibb.co/hF657Nv

The red boxes show the actual car park land. The yellow arrows show the entrance from the road and then the 'entrance' to the two bits of car parking area. The yellow cross is the location of the payment machine. The black cross is the access point to the marina itself. 

The footpath running in between the two bits of car parking area is connected to the marina access and the car park. 

If after all these enquirers it comes out that this particular piece of land is not covered by the byelaws, would it change the first appeal text (kindly put together by @nopcns) and would I have any other technicality to bother going all the way to courts (if it goes that far)?

As an update, the Cardiff Harbour Authority have told me that the parking is on private land and is not within the Harbour limits therefore the Byelaws are not applicable. So that's that...

I sent in my first appeal and they have rejected it. This was my first appeal to NGPM.

I am unequivocally appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) solely as the registered keeper of the vehicle, definitely NOT as the driver. However, due to the deliberate restriction of the online appeal system provided by New Generation Parking Management (NGPM), there being no option but to tick a box indicating that I am appealing as the driver in order to progress through the appeals process, can only be considered as a deliberate attempt to coercively entrap the keeper of the vehicle. This is considered to be a deliberate deceit and, should NGPM try and progress this PCN, I will use this obvious deception to show the court that NGPMs behaviour is both vexatious and unreasonable.

The action of ticking the box stating that the appellant is the driver is taken under protest and does not constitute any admission of liability nor waive my right to appeal solely as the registered keeper as addressed in the PCN. NGPM know full well that, as the keeper, I am not under any legal obligation to disclose the driver's identity. I demand a fair and transparent appeals process that respects my legal position as the registered keeper and allows me to contest the PCN without coercion or deceit.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include close-up actual photographs of the signs you contend were at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it. If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

Notwithstanding the above, NGPM cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, NGPM will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Cardiff Marina is not 'relevant land'.

If Cardiff Harbour wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Harbour Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because NGPM is not the marina owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NGPM's own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NGPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. NGPM have no hope should you attempt to take this matter to court, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Below is their response. Sounds like a standard template

We have reviewed the evidence presented to us and considered this appeal. However, based on the information provided this appeal has been rejected. Parking restrictions are clearly stated at the entrance to and within the site, which must be adhered to at all times. Signage states that visitors using the Marina’s facilities must pay at the machine provided and display a valid ticket for the duration of their stay through the front windscreen at all times.

This is our final decision. You now have two options.

Option 1: You now have the option to settle the £100 parking charge notice discounted by 40% if paid within 14 days of this rejection letter. Discounted Rate £60.00. Please note that the discounted rate is only applicable if you have submitted your appeal within 14 days of your charge being issued.

Payments can be made by visiting www.ngpltd.com to make a payment or by calling 0871 434 4374.

Alternatively, send a cheque or postal order to the address below.

Option 2: Lodge an appeal with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Details of the appeal procedure can be found at www.theIAS.org. Please keep in mind by appealing with the (IAS) PCN Charges will NOT be discounted and will return to its original state of £100.

The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. We will engage with the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to the IAS within 21 days of this rejection letter.

Yours faithfully,
PCN Appeals Dept.

Should I now just leave it and let it play out? Would I have any grounds to win if they do choose to go all the way?

Coupon-mad

Ignore them.

Yes.

General_Grant

SLang1214 said:

     . . . . . . The driver entered the car park and exited 23 minutes later. The driver didn't actually 'park' the car. They only entered as they wanted to take some photos of the car to put it up for sale. The car park provided a suitable background.  were even happy for me to use the manager's name in the appeal.
. . . 

Devil's advocate here (and I haven't looked at the linked photos).

But how did the driver manage not to park their car? 
Were they driving round for 23 minutes with someone else taking photographs?
Was the car stationary and not in a parking bay?
Is it actually the signage which is at fault?

Coupon-mad

General_Grant said:

SLang1214 said:

     . . . . . . The driver entered the car park and exited 23 minutes later. The driver didn't actually 'park' the car. They only entered as they wanted to take some photos of the car to put it up for sale. The car park provided a suitable background.  were even happy for me to use the manager's name in the appeal.
. . . 

Devil's advocate here (and I haven't looked at the linked photos).

But how did the driver manage not to park their car? 
Were they driving round for 23 minutes with someone else taking photographs?
Was the car stationary and not in a parking bay?
Is it actually the signage which is at fault?

I can answer the last question: YES.

What is described is not a case of the driver knowing from very prominent signs, that they were somehow agreeing to pay £100.

SLang1214

General_Grant said:

SLang1214 said:

     . . . . . . The driver entered the car park and exited 23 minutes later. The driver didn't actually 'park' the car. They only entered as they wanted to take some photos of the car to put it up for sale. The car park provided a suitable background.  were even happy for me to use the manager's name in the appeal.
. . . 

Devil's advocate here (and I haven't looked at the linked photos).

But how did the driver manage not to park their car? 
Were they driving round for 23 minutes with someone else taking photographs?
Was the car stationary and not in a parking bay?
Is it actually the signage which is at fault?

The car was stationary and not in a parking bay. Photos of the car were taken in two different positions, but neither in a parking bay.