'PCN NOW CANCELLED' data privacy & complaints NPC Group, DCB Legal, DVLA, IPC, ICO & MP

Thorndorise

After consideration the landowners/ business are prepared to do diddly squat, as I didn't compete the admin step of entering my reg plate for an e-permit...

I did check the proof for time stamps by logging on as if I were going to pay, that's all squared away.

I wrote a comprehensive document detailing how if there are no entrance signs directing you to the T&Cs signs, then I shouldn't have been aware of them,  plus plenty of conflicting/ confusing signs in site indicating no parking vl control. 

So far ignored the PPC, I'll keep you posted

Curious if anyone else has had this story of experience with free parking (no time limit) but having to register car reg in the business (not machines in car park)?

Ta

Coupon-mad

Happens all the time. A typical PPC trap, preying on human nature and reasonable expectation of what 'free parking' means.

The industry take advantage of human behaviours for their own profit and that's illegal under the CRA 2015.  Best explained here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f8b58ed915d74e33f716e/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

Happens all the time. A typical PPC trap, preying on human nature and reasonable expectation of what 'free parking' means.

The industry take advantage of human behaviours for their own profit and that's illegal under the CRA 2015.  Best explained here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f8b58ed915d74e33f716e/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Thanks Coupon-mad (even for responding, I know you're very active on here).

Think I'm having a light bulb moment, 'unfair' contractual terms provided by a third party contracted by a landowner. In effect by creating a 'parking charge' they are in effect, penalising and requesting over compensation for 'their' loss (not the landowners - making even more suspect).

Now, I know that recently that chap in Essex had his claim thrown out as all he needed 'was a watch' as he overstayed 42 minutes, but that also feels like a shoddy judge....esp on a PPC element.

All in all, I will hold fast and see what comes!

Thorndorise

Thorndorise said:

Coupon-mad said:

Happens all the time. A typical PPC trap, preying on human nature and reasonable expectation of what 'free parking' means.

The industry take advantage of human behaviours for their own profit and that's illegal under the CRA 2015.  Best explained here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f8b58ed915d74e33f716e/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Thanks Coupon-mad (even for responding, I know you're very active on here).

Think I'm having a light bulb moment, 'unfair' contractual terms provided by a third party contracted by a landowner. In effect by creating a 'parking charge' they are in effect, penalising and requesting over compensation for 'their' loss (not the landowners - making even more suspect).

Now, I know that recently that chap in Essex had his claim thrown out as all he needed 'was a watch' as he overstayed 42 minutes, but that also feels like a shoddy judge....esp on a PPC element.

All in all, I will hold fast and see what comes!

ooh, a question...and this has made me think about this...

With whom is my potential contract that I've entered into? Is it the PPC or the landowner? If it's the latter, then that speaks to the 'loss' element should there be any (none here), but if the former - can they officially contract you or are they the traders agent (i.e. working on behalf of the landowner_.

Also if they are listed as a creditor - does this not indicate some sort of skullduggery also? - rather than listing them as a business with whom someone may be entering into a contract with... p.s. I don't think their signs actually list them as a creditor and I believe this is in contravention of the signage guidelines from IPS.

Some musings above which may not be new to some of you folk, as always thanks!

nopcns

By entering their private land and having had your attention drawn to any sign with the terms on it, you will have entered a contract by conduct. If you choose not to read any signs that are prominent enough to draw your attention, that is neither here nor there. However, if you don't notice any sign because it is not prominent or obvious, that is a different matter and you can't have entered into a contract by conduct.

There's much more to it. If the sign with the terms has the PPCs name on it, then you are entering into the contract with the PPC. However, if the prominent name on the sign is the landowner or their agent (not the PPC) then you are entering into a contract with them. If the PPC wants to take the issue of a breach of contract further, the PPC must evidence that they have valid contract with the landowner that gives them the right to issue parking charge notices in their name and that they also have the right to commence court claims in their own name.

The list is not exhaustive.

Thorndorise

Thanks nopcns, the latter part of that first paragraph
Rather than not wanting to or bothering to read them....no entrance signs pertaining to PCC and said T&Cs (in fact their entrance signs relate to the landowner/management co. and relate to being locked in), and potentially inadequate and infrequent signage within the site. along with 5 different sign types within the site to confuse matters further.

Really interesting point about the PPC, I've seen before people requesting unredacted copies highlighting the need to confirm that the PPC has the right to apply the charge, and thus start any legal proceedings.

Silly question - but what's in it for the Landowner - I assume 'hassle-free' parking control? I did see that NPC provide £15 'compensation' to anyone that applies the T&Cs and charge via their App (this instance was performed on the app). This feels like a great incentive to the landowner to self-police as well - assuming the charges get paid of course.

But, the landowner stated that NPC have their own staff that patrol 24/7 (this is odd as companies house has them down as only 1 employee - the MD) - so I assume these are 'sub-contractors' making an earning by catching folk out folk that may have breached. When I say sub-contractors I assume this means they are entirely self-employed - interesting gig?

Thorndorise

Hi - just an update on the current situation: No further comms from the PPC - however this is to be expected as I haven't reached their 28 days yet.

I have hammered the land owner/management company - I sent them an in depth doc with the relevant failures in their (PPC's) signage. They have pretty much regurgitated the same "take it up with NPC" line.

I particularly called them out on having no 'Entrance signs' per IPC code, thus making any T&Cs signs a but null & void - again all refuted as they felt the signage was adequate.

I did swing by (but not park) at Diss Business Park again yesterday, and wow - what a surprise - the erroneous signs near their entrance (the 'childish' ones from before) have now all gone. Which essentially means that they now have NO entrance signs at all into the main car park...which is probably a little worse than bad ones.

I did schooch down to the 'business zone' and there actually are entrance signs there...but these don't get seen when driving onto the site or the rear car park, plus a stack of confusing and conflicting signs....I didn't get a good enough pic, will try and get one.

I've captured for prosperity - but will update if I hear back from the PPC.

Coupon-mad

Prosperity?  You mean posterity.

  

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

Prosperity?  You mean posterity.

  

Ha very possibly, I was thinking how I would reap the reward of not paying a parking charge lol!!!

But yes, that is what I meant...

nopcns

When you communicated with the landowner/MA, did you highlight that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent? That and a question about who is the monkey and who is the organ grinder in their contractual relationship should have been included.