PCN - 'Vehicle not Parked within a marked Bay'

tricklepip

Hi folks,

I bring before you a case on behalf of a close relative of mine. As the registered keeper of a vehicle, they have received a PCN from Parking Group Ltd who have highlighted the reason for the PCN is as mentioned in the subject of this post. Note that this isn't your common 'I parked in two marked bays at once' case. I've paid a visit to the site as I frequent it myself. Any pictures here are taken from Google Maps, but all signage and markings remain the same between the time the photos were taken and today.

Scenario:

Busy day, tiny car park with a Greggs/Subway and an estate agent (who also happens to be the landowner). All bays taken at the time of their entry into the car park. The signage at the entrance of the car park is as follows:



One might think this sign would be a good place to state that any visitors are required to park in marked bays only. Instead, that information was reserved for the multiple signs that were nestled behind the several parked cars, with small panels and a tiny font size. Unless you managed to park directly in front of one and/or brought your binoculars, you couldn't read it without getting out of the car.

In this case, the driver parked in the zone marked in red in the image below, for what I am led to believe was less than 10 minutes, without leaving the car or turning the engine off. This is apparently a loading bay, but there is no signage anywhere to indicate this - not on the floor, walls, posts etc.





A member of staff came out of Subway after a few minutes to warn the driver about people doing this on a regular basis and receiving PCNs for parking there as it's a loading bay, at which point the driver cleared off. As I understand, the fact that this is a loading bay is irrelevant, and the real issue is that the signs indicate one must park in a marked bay.

As it is next to impossible to read the sign from your car, and the entire area outside of this car park is double yellow lines, how is somebody ever supposed to read the rules of the car park before the camera (circled in orange) has taken a picture and the system has already done you over?

Progress so far:

Contact and complain to landowner

This has not worked. Whenever Moss are contacted, they claim that the landowner is currently out of work for whatever reason. Probably a default response due to the amount of people calling in.

Appeal to the notice provider

This has been done using the template provided in the pinned thread on this forum. It was rejected for the following reason: 'The signage clearly states that all vehicles must be parked in a marked bay at all times'. The registered keeper was directed towards POPLA should they want to appeal further. Here's a close-up provided by Parking Group Ltd as part of the response. It's amusing that you can hardly read anything on their evidence shot, and the photo was taken far closer to the sign than you can get while in a car.



So I guess my question is, where do they go from here? After researching the car park, I personally feel that the way this is set up is definitely an unfair trap, but I'm no expert. Should they pursue the POPLA appeal path? Note that if the answer is yes, it looks like there's only a small window left in which to respond.

Many thanks from myself and those affected,
Trick

Coupon-mad

A loading bay is "a bay", and it looks like it is demarcated by different tarmac, so they weren't 'parked outside of a marked bay'.

As you rightly say, there are NO signs & lines in or near that bay area - course not, this is what rogue PPCs do - so of course people will park on that bit (looks like a 'hardstand' area) of marked tarmac.

This is a typical PPC trap.

They must be rinsing people every week there.

Appalling small text on the sign, too.  This is winnable at POPLA on those two points.

Please show us the PCN, BOTH sides.

tricklepip

Thank you for the swift reply Coupon-mad. Here are both sides of the NTK/PCN, with the personal details stripped out.

nopcns

Date of issue and date of posting are important pieces of information that we need to see in order to determine if they have complied with the requirements of PoFA.

tricklepip

Apologies, oversight on my part. Here we go:

Date of Posting: 27/02/2024

Date of Event: 20/02/2024

Issued Time: 15:49

"On 20/02/2024 vehicle __________ was observed..."

I believe that covers all dates they have provided. Please let me know if you require further information.

nopcns

Thank you. In which case, the NtK is PoFA compliant and liability can be transferred from the driver to the keeper provided that all other requirements of the Act have been strictly complied with. One notable requirement is that the signs at the location must comply with PoFA section 2(2) and 2(3).

Coupon-mad

tricklepip said:

Thank you for the swift reply Coupon-mad. Here are both sides of the NTK/PCN, with the personal details stripped out.

Yes that's a POFA notice but the appalling inadequate lines and signs might win at POPLA if the recipient wants to try.

If they lose, IGNORE the PPC.

If they choose not to try POPLA, just ignore the PPC from now.

Obviously, 'ignore mode' (a perfectly good option with this industry) includes telling the PPC and their daft debt collectors, if the recipient moves house though.  And not ignoring a court claim (easy to defend. Easier than POPLA).

tricklepip

Thanks both. So would you recommend skipping the POPLA step and going into ignore mode until a court claim appears?

Otherwise, what should they send to POPLA to have a chance in shutting this down?

Coupon-mad

They do what post 3 of the NEWBIES thread coaches.  Appeal points are there.

Coupon-mad

tricklepip said:

Thanks both. So would you recommend skipping the POPLA step and going into ignore mode until a court claim appears?

Otherwise, what should they send to POPLA to have a chance in shutting this down?

How did it go or are you cheerfully ignoring the scam threatograms?