Highview Parking Junction 1 Leisure & Retail Park, Rugby

Smelly_Dog

I'll try and keep this one quick and simple. Highview claiming that a relative left his car parked for 22 hours! Very obviously two separate visits but they have used a photo of him entering one day and leaving the next. The leaving and re-entering photos in between are conveniently left out. I've heard on the grapevine that many other people have been hit with them trying this on so maybe their software can't cope with more than one visit in 24 hours?

Reply is in next post:

Smelly_Dog

Highview Parking

Re: Your Invoice no. xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your invoice dated xxxx March 2024.

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 a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was 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.

In order to resolve this dispute quickly you should be aware of the following:

1) Your invoice did not arrive within the 14 day limit as required under Section 9 sub-paragraph 4 part b and sub-paragraph 5 of POFA 2012 c.9 Schedule 4 so therefore no liability can be transferred to the keeper. This is hardly surprising given that your date of issue is a full ten days after the alleged breach of your parking rules.

2) I was working on lates that week and can produce video evidence and/or sworn testimony of my work colleagues that the car in question was parked in our company car park from 1.30pm to 10.00pm on xx/xx/2024 which you claim is when the car was in your car park.

3) It’s blatantly obvious to anyone who isn’t an idiot that you have photographed the vehicle on at least two separate visits to and from the car park.

4) If you insist on pursuing this frivolous claim then I shall appoint a third party to deal with the matter on my behalf and invoice your company for their fees. I have spent more than an hour looking into this already and am too busy to dedicate any more time to it.
Your invoices are not PoFA compliant yet you continue to try to dupe people into paying completely unjustified and unrecoverable invoices. Many members of the public and parking forums believe that your business practices are closer to extortion than any legitimate process for many reasons that I will make clear if you do decide to proceed with this matter. Your company KNOWS VERY WELL that this "charge" is unenforceable yet continues to relentlessly attempt recovery of morally repugnant and legally dubious charges.

I look forward to your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled/withdrawn.
You have no hope at POPLA so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel your invoice.

Sincerely, xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

Registered Keeper of xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

Smelly_Dog

Please check it over before I print and post and feel free to suggest any edits/changes.

Thank you.

KeithP

Just a small point, but I think you need to separate the fact that you, the appellant, was ' working lates' and the fact that the car was in the car park.

Maybe starting your paragraph numbered 2) with "The driver was working on lates that week..." will resolve that.

Coupon-mad

Smelly_Dog said:

Please check it over before I print and post and feel free to suggest any edits/changes.

Thank you.

You aren't printing or posting anything.

I'd remove the template entirely and stick with your words about them being idiots.  You don't need a template appeal for a double dip case.

Le_Kirk

Smelly_Dog said:

I'll try and keep this one quick and simple. Highview claiming that a relative left his car parked for 22 hours! Very obviously two separate visits but they have used a photo of him entering one day and leaving the next. The leaving and re-entering photos in between are conveniently left out. I've heard on the grapevine that many other people have been hit with them trying this on so maybe their software can't cope with more than one visit in 24 hours?

The term you are searching for is "orphan images" and the claim that the car spent 22 hours there is because they did not carry out manual checks before sending the PCN.

D_P_Dance

Very common, read this

** DOUBLE-DIP PARKING - List of cases ** - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

nopcns

Smelly_Dog said:

1) Your invoice did not arrive within the 14 day limit as required under Section 9 sub-paragraph 4 part b and sub-paragraph 5 of POFA 2012 c.9 Schedule 4 so therefore no liability can be transferred to the keeper. This is hardly surprising given that your date of issue is a full ten days after the alleged breach of your parking rules.

Just to clarify, as we have not seen the NtK or know the actual dates, unless you can prove that the NtK arrived later than 14 days after the parking event, it may have been delivered within the timescale allowed by PoFA. The date of the parking event is day zero. The date on the NtK or a postmark on the envelope will be the date that it is issued. It is "deemed" as having been delivered two working days after that date.

So, if you are going to accuse the PPC of failing to comply with PoFA on dates, you will need to double check that it was "deemed" delivered within the 14 day time limit. The actual date you received it matters not, unless you can prove otherwise.

Smelly_Dog

KeithP said:

Just a small point, but I think you need to separate the fact that you, the appellant, was ' working lates' and the fact that the car was in the car park.

Maybe starting your paragraph numbered 2) with "The driver was working on lates that week..." will resolve that.

Thanks. Maybe even better to state that "the keeper of the vehicle" was working on lates that week" rather than the driver?

Smelly_Dog

nopcns said:

So, if you are going to accuse the PPC of failing to comply with PoFA on dates, you will need to double check that it was "deemed" delivered within the 14 day time limit. The actual date you received it matters not, unless you can prove otherwise.

Good point. Will remove as 10+2=12 and can't prove otherwise.

Smelly_Dog

Coupon-mad said:

Smelly_Dog said:

Please check it over before I print and post and feel free to suggest any edits/changes.

Thank you.

You aren't printing or posting anything.

I'd remove the template entirely and stick with your words about them being idiots.  You don't need a template appeal for a double dip case.

Awwwww. But I like your "blue bit" Coupon. Because what it really means is, By the way. I have Coupon-mad and a load of other clever people in the parking forums on my side so you're "xxxxed!"