Highview Parking Junction 1 Leisure & Retail Park, Rugby

KeithP

Smelly_Dog said:

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?

No, definitely not. That says the keeper was driving.

JoeN1988

You should complain to your local MP (Robert Pawsey) about this.

If your relative was working for one of the retailers within J1 it should be easy enough for them to cancel.

I'm local to the area. If you need a hand down the line getting photos of the inadequate signage etc feel free to drop me a PM. I'd be happy to help. 

Smelly_Dog

I've amended the letter/appeal.

17th April 2024

Highview Parking Ltd

 

PO Box 1750
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN1 9PN

Re: Your Invoice no. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your invoice dated 25th 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. More than one person is insured to drive the vehicle. 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) I, as keeper of the vehicle, 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 my company car park from 1.30pm to 10.00pm on 14/03/2024 when you claim the car was in your car park.

2) 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. What is known in your cheap-skate industry as double dipping. There are obviously “orphan images” in your system that would clearly show the vehicle leaving and returning almost 24 hours later.
As long ago as 2016 it was acknowledged that as many as 1 in 20 cars were not picked up entering or leaving by ANPR for a variety of reasons. Does this jog your memory?
 
https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

I suggest that you have been negligent and have shown no “due diligence” before accessing the DVLA for the keeper data so you are therefore also likely to be in breach of the Data Protection Act which would make you liable for compensation.

3) 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, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Registered Keeper of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Smelly_Dog

KeithP said:

Smelly_Dog said:

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?

No, definitely not. That says the keeper was driving.

Yes. Makes clear that the keeper was driving his car somewhere else during the time that they claim it was in their car park. Surely it means that they would have to prove that another, un-named driver was parked at the same time in their car park, in the same car? Maybe splitting hairs but my original seemed to suggest that the keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged breach. This shows that there is no way the keeper could be the driver who was in their car park as he was at work, with his car? At least not for his 8 hour shift?

KeithP

Sorry to be repeating it, but I still think you announcing that the keeper was working nights is the wrong thing to do. 

Why do you not want to start your paragraph numbered 1) with "The driver was working on Lates that week..."

Your proposal blatantly gives away the driver's identity. Can you not see that?

In fact your latest paragraph 1) uses the word 'my' far too many times. Then sign off the letter as 'registered keeper' - thus declaring that the registered keeper was the driver.

Up to you of course. I'll leave it there.

Smelly_Dog

JoeN1988 said:

You should complain to your local MP (Robert Pawsey) about this.

If your relative was working for one of the retailers within J1 it should be easy enough for them to cancel.

I'm local to the area. If you need a hand down the line getting photos of the inadequate signage etc feel free to drop me a PM. I'd be happy to help. 

Thanks JoeN but in my opinion Robert Pawsey is a two-faced waste of space. Takes every chance he gets for a photo-op at our hospital  yet has stood and watched as its services have been eviscerated by his party. Can't wait for him to be gone. Appreciate the offer of help, though.

JoeN1988

Sounds like you're local. No problem then.

You could've saved a few words describing our local MP by just stating "tory".

Follow the advice given on here and you'll most likely win, one way or another. 

Smelly_Dog

Didn't want to bring politics in to this forum I'm fairly certain there are people of all political persuasions here who abhor the parking "industry."

JoeN1988

Still worth an email. The more MPs that are made aware of the Private Parking Scam the better.

I've actually worked at his house on multiple occasions and he's fairly reasonable to talk to.

nopcns

Smelly_Dog said:

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

Not necessarily. The "+2" must be working days. Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays don't count. This is why we advise that you don't redact actual dates because no one except you knows which days of the week we are dealing with here.

Also, why have you inserted "more than one person is insured to drive the vehicle" in your appeal? There are potentially millions of people who can drive the vehicle with the owners permission and their own third party insurance.

You then go on about the PCN not being PoFA compliant yet just about dob yourself in the mire by stating that you were the driver. At least that is how it appears as there is no mention of the "double dip" which is one of the main points of your appeal. The whole point of relying on the non-PoFA argument is to prevent transfer of liability from the driver to the keeper.

If you are going to quote all sorts of breaches of codes of practice or acts of parliament, you should at least try and familiarise yourself with them. For a "double dip", the PPC, if a BPA member, will have breached BPA CoP rule 22.2. By breaching rule 22.2, they have therefore breached the KADOE rules and obtained your data in breach of your UK GDPR under Article 12. Not only have the PPC breached your GDPR, so have the DVLA by providing it.

Please try and familiarise yourself with the relevant things you are accusing the PPC of having breached. It will help you understand what you are trying to compose.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81a0c7e5274a2e8ab55036/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted