May be useful, clear evidence of PCM agent not abiding by Code of Practice

BlamfordBlue

I have another thread on my own dealings with PCM in my residential car park. This is a separate issue that the keeper is appealing, I just couldn't believe how obvious this parking attendant bent the rules, and then gave his own evidence for doing so.

Thought it might be useful to someone on here:

Summary:

-Sunday morning a friend gets a lift and drives to me to drop off her dogs while they go on holiday. 
- Permitted carpark, very quiet, they usually come by to check permits once a week.

- Car is stopped in open area so it's a shorter distance to walk

-Stops, unloads, leaves, a week later the NTK comes through saying 'parked outside the confines of a marked bay', £60 if you pay now

- We never saw attendant, they didn't make themselves known or try to leave a paper ticket as is usual at this site.

- Picture evidence shows 4 minutes 1 second total on the controlled site, then another picture of the car after it left and drives away on the public road.

Below are the the first and last pictures of the car on that private land.



Apologies for over the top censoring, not my vehicle so being extra careful.

I think I'm correct in saying that even the old private parking codes stated that 5 minutes grace period must be given as a minimum on deciding whether to park and the new ones state 10 minutes! Is there somewhere I can send the evidence of this and maybe request confirmation of the agents certifications to issue tickets on behalf of an IPC accredited company?

Regardless, it's set out in my lease that I can give permission for loading etc. but I just couldn't believe this level of predatory behaviour. I also realised that the agent never checked the permits, so it could just as easily happened to a resident.

Gr1pr

The Jopson versus Homeguard appeal covers loading and unloading, please study it 

Where does any of the two codes of practice state that the consideration period is 10 minutes, either in the current Version 9 editions or in version 8. ?

BlamfordBlue

@Gr1pr I'm familiar with the case law, this isn't a thread asking for help with appeals, just showing what I thought was clear rule bending by an IPC accredited firm.

The IPC Code of practice 9th edition has it in Schedule 7, Table B.1, Permitted Users car park row state's 10 mins Grace period.
DLHC Code has it at Annex B, B.1 as well. Same deal.

It's a residential permit car park with visitors bays. But the signage indicates parking charge of £100 and there are no gates or codes to drive in which leads me to believe the Restricted section of these tables applies.

Of course this only applies if the vehicle is parked not unloading, which is being appealed but I found it interesting that if there was no unloading, that 4 minutes is apparently enough for the agent to issue a ticket.

Gr1pr

The postal PCN was issued for not parking within the bay markings, almost every sign includes that clause 

IPC CoP version 9 section 13 covers consideration periods and grace periods , both CoPs have always had them at section 13

I don't believe that the section you quoted applies because its not controlled land open to the public, its probably controlled permit only land in marked bays, where maybe visitors need a temporary permit or similar , the Restricted section may apply but clause 13 expects that the driver has complied with the signage onsite 

Short-stay.                       n/a  n/a 10 Specify permitted use

Permitted users ******  n/a  n/a 10 Specify permitted use

But the PCN was issued for parking otherwise than in accordance with the signs, not being in the confines of a marked bay . You stated that there are visitor bays but the vehicle was parked in an open area instead of in the confines of the marked visitors bay so no consideration period and no Grace period due to the alleged breach of the signage rules

BlamfordBlue

Okay, I see what you mean and yes the car park operates pretty much as you stated. I've attached a photo of the sign. But I'm still not sure that what the driver did qualifies as parking. Stopped or unloading yes but not parked.


The consideration period section 13.1 IPC PoC says appropriate time to identify and read signs etc.
And the only signs with real info are within the site itself, so you have to be on the land to find out what the signs say. Does that not mean they have to allow someone the consideration period it would take to arrive and read the sign with ridiculously small text and work out what the t's and c's are? The only signage visible before the land has very little info, just controlled by PCM.

Also the line 'if unsure please seek further advice', would that not allow a driver to ask a resident of the rules of the car park instead of using their £1 per call system? 

Surely a consideration period of 4 minutes is too short for that, I genuinely don't think anybody new to the area could find and read the signage in that time. Let alone if they were to go knock at the door and collect a visitors permit.

 

Gr1pr

I agree, hence why I mentioned Jopson

There is no permitted parking in an open area, no offer, no consideration, no contract 

Private parking companies are in the business of issuing PCNs for anything and everything and the operative would report the alleged infringement to his employers who would make a biased decision on whether to issue a postal PCN or not, based on the signage and on the pictures 

I would say that my take on it is the one they took, that the driver should have stayed with the vehicle and then parked in a visitor bay

You have your views on the consideration period, should there be one, I agree, but clearly the CoP says N/A 

Personally I think there should be a simpler system of say 5 minutes consideration period and ten minutes grace period anywhere, but that idea disappeared years ago 

I would love to see a breach of their own CoP upheld, but I don't believe that this case has legs 

But in court it may be saved by your thoughts plus Jopson 

You definitely have the right idea on their business model, that preys on motorists 

Coupon-mad

Yes to all of the above.  Totally with you.

BlamfordBlue

I see, so essentially just stopping on private land in any capacity can be seen as parking, crazy. I didn't mention it but the driver went back & forth from the car at least 3 times so the agent must have conveniently waited until no one was in the picture each time.

I'll have a look at the entry sign tomorrow to see what it says and see if it follows the PoC's standards but I assume it will. 

Thanks for the info, I didn't realise the differences in private land. Again, the keeper is appealing on Jopson precedent primarily, I just felt so sure that the ticket wasn't valid even if the driver had no business being on site. As I, along with other residents and visitors had done exactly the same thing hundreds of times  and I've never seen someone get a ticket for it.

I think the upcoming changes to the law has these companies desperate to leech as much as they can while its still semi-legal. They used to check our car park once a week on a Saturday or Monday morning. Now they come multiple times a week and turn up as late as 11pm trying to catch residents out. 

KeithP

BlamfordBlue said:

I see, so essentially just stopping on private land in any capacity can be seen as parking, crazy. I didn't mention it but the driver went back & forth from the car at least 3 times so the agent must have conveniently waited until no one was in the picture each time.

The picture at 11:06:16 actually shows the car door wide open.
Hardly locked up and parked I would suggest.

BlamfordBlue

@KeithP I think that's just as they were getting in the car to leave, so I suppose that means it was less then 4 minutes where the car was allegedly parked. There's about 4 more pictures I didn't include  between those times that are just of the car sitting there (didn't seem important) and the last one of the car driving away on a public road about a minute after the 11:06 picture.

It's an amazing coincidence that he didn't once capture any of the 3 people, 2 dogs and multiple bags and dog beds during his Sunday morning voyeur session.

BlamfordBlue

Signage on the edge of the controlled land. Is that really sufficient warning that it's completely off limits to non-residents?

Could the massive P for parking not be construed as an offer to Park?



It even tells you to read the other signs, which you'd need to drive in to see, plus no warnings about potential on the spot charges.