Parking Charge Notice: Reason for issue - "No valid parking payment found" ?!

cs95aam

KeithP said:

cs95aam said:

KeithP said:

That PCN you have shown us claims that the parking event took place at...

Salisbury Road is not in the area covered by the postcode TW4 7NW.

The picture you have shown us of where you parked is not in Salisbury Road either, but being in Chinchilla Drive, it is covered by the TW4 7NW postcode.

Chinchilla Drive and Salisbury Road are right next to each other.

Indeed they are next to each other, but the point I was trying to make is that despite the PCN asserting it, the car park under discussion is not in Salisbury Road.

You have been accused of parking in a car park that doesn't even exist.
As far as I can see there is no car park anywhere in Salisbury Road.

Thanks. Looking at Google maps, yes I see your point but it won't be enough to get me out of this charge and potentially many more? Asteria have apparently been there for a couple of months. I could argue the change of company should have been made clear but other than that I dont know what else I can say. The restaurant that has employed Asteria has said they will look into it. So let's see.

KeithP

cs95aam said:

KeithP said:

cs95aam said:

KeithP said:

That PCN you have shown us claims that the parking event took place at...

Salisbury Road is not in the area covered by the postcode TW4 7NW.

The picture you have shown us of where you parked is not in Salisbury Road either, but being in Chinchilla Drive, it is covered by the TW4 7NW postcode.

Chinchilla Drive and Salisbury Road are right next to each other.

Indeed they are next to each other, but the point I was trying to make is that despite the PCN asserting it, the car park under discussion is not in Salisbury Road.

You have been accused of parking in a car park that doesn't even exist.
As far as I can see there is no car park anywhere in Salisbury Road.

Thanks. Looking at Google maps, yes I see your point but it won't be enough to get me out of this charge and potentially many more?

Why won't it?

If I were accused of parking in a place that doesn't even exist, I would be fighting vigorously against it. 

Where exactly is 69 Salisbury Road? That's where they claim the vehicle was parked.

Trainerman

fisherjim said:

That consideration period is in my view an unfair term.

There is also the fact that a change in terms and conditions should be signed at the entrance, and those signs should be in place for a reasonable period, the IPC don't specify, but the BPA state four months.

These are new scammers on the block trying it on, and the IPC are by their own terms and conditions supposed to audit every site for conformance, they obviously do not!

Strong defence point right there

LDast

You could also refer to the new "joint" Code of Practice (CoP) which is in effect and they are in breach of section 3.4 which states:

3.4 Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

It matters not whether they are BPA or IPC members, they are now expected to follow their own rules... the haven't.

Read it for yourself and use it against them:

 https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

cs95aam

LDast said:

You could also refer to the new "joint" Code of Practice (CoP) which is in effect and they are in breach of section 3.4 which states:

3.4 Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

It matters not whether they are BPA or IPC members, they are now expected to follow their own rules... the haven't.

Read it for yourself and use it against them:

 https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

Thank you, I really appreciate your help.

cs95aam

LDast said:

You could also refer to the new "joint" Code of Practice (CoP) which is in effect and they are in breach of section 3.4 which states:

3.4 Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

It matters not whether they are BPA or IPC members, they are now expected to follow their own rules... the haven't.

Read it for yourself and use it against them:

 https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

I've chased the landowner and although he says he will contact them he hasn't even looked at the Whatsapp message I sent him on Sunday which contains details of the charge so I am going to appeal to Asteria online today. When I look at the IPC's Code of Conduct I don't see anything like Section 3.4. Asteria are a member of the IPC and not the BPA.

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4.pdf

How is the BPA Code of Conduct applicable to Asteria when they aren't a member?

EDIT: Corrected BPC to BPA

Gr1pr

You mean BPA, not what you wrote 

In simple terms, it doesn't, its not applicable, because the parking company don't subscribe to it and so are not bound to it

It can be useful as a guide, because it can be the case that there is useful content within it but it may only convince a judge in court.  Frankly , the BPA and the BPA AOS have nothing to do with this case, only Asteria, the IPC and the IPC CoP do

Those 2 trade bodies recently announced a new single Code of Practice to be implemented in a few months time, but after that the mandatory single government CoP should supercede it, meaning a regulatory CoP for everyone involved, a single ones that is set in stone. None of which helps this case because none of it has happened yet , but all 3 codes of practice do have wordings related to new changes on sites , regarding signage 

Should be better next year for everyone, using the same DLUHC mandatory hymn sheet,  ( not different voluntary hymn sheets from different sources using different words which is what happens now. )

fisherjim

cs95aam said:

LDast said:

You could also refer to the new "joint" Code of Practice (CoP) which is in effect and they are in breach of section 3.4 which states:

3.4 Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

It matters not whether they are BPA or IPC members, they are now expected to follow their own rules... the haven't.

Read it for yourself and use it against them:

 https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

I've chased the landowner and although he says he will contact them he hasn't even looked at the Whatsapp message I sent him on Sunday which contains details of the charge so I am going to appeal to Asteria online today. When I look at the IPC's Code of Conduct I don't see anything like Section 3.4. Asteria are a member of the IPC and not the BPC.

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4.pdf

How is the BCP Code of Conduct applicable to Asteria when they aren't a member?

You seem to have ignored my previous comments!

FYI here is the relevant wording in the current IPC COP, as I said they don't specify a timescale, but the BPA COP and the new joint COP quote 4 months, so should be referred to as LDast states above:

IPC CODE NINTH EDITION 1ST JANUARY 2024
P30
Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions
Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to
a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional
(temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that
regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges. Notices
should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4.pdf

cs95aam

fisherjim said:

cs95aam said:

LDast said:

You could also refer to the new "joint" Code of Practice (CoP) which is in effect and they are in breach of section 3.4 which states:

3.4 Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

It matters not whether they are BPA or IPC members, they are now expected to follow their own rules... the haven't.

Read it for yourself and use it against them:

 https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

I've chased the landowner and although he says he will contact them he hasn't even looked at the Whatsapp message I sent him on Sunday which contains details of the charge so I am going to appeal to Asteria online today. When I look at the IPC's Code of Conduct I don't see anything like Section 3.4. Asteria are a member of the IPC and not the BPC.

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4.pdf

How is the BCP Code of Conduct applicable to Asteria when they aren't a member?

You seem to have ignored my previous comments!

FYI here is the relevant wording in the current IPC COP, as I said they don't specify a timescale, but the BPA COP and the new joint COP quote 4 months, so should be referred to as LDast states above:

IPC CODE NINTH EDITION 1ST JANUARY 2024
P30
Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions
Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to
a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional
(temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that
regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges. Notices
should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4.pdf

I didn't ignore it. It wasn't able to find what I needed in that document. Whilst I appreciate the help being offered on this forum I'm getting it in exchange for being told off for spelling mistakes relating to the names of trade bodies or not being able to find the information I need in lengthy documents. People have no idea what health issues and other challenges people have. Rather than be kind I suppose it's easy to just tell people off for things that are obvious to one person but not the other.

Gr1pr

Clarity and facts are what matter here, it is an education, like being back at school, but if this goes to your local court then as a legal matter it all matters, so better to be pulled up on the facts now than under cross examination in civil court, the legal terms and facts are of great importance, so its important that you understand them and learn 

Yes it's currently deliberately complicated, hence why the DLUHC has been trying to simplify it for the last 5 years or more, but simplicity wont be available until next year, so understanding the whole thing and not a part of the picture is key here 

Don't look for things that aren't there, study the current and future differences in find a common strand to work with 

We all started off this way, naive and not au fait with the topics, the complications set in over a decade ago 

On this forum, every day is a school day, for all of us. !

You can do what the parking companies do and hire a lawyer for legal advice if you wish 

I make spelling mistakes all the time, so I edit my advice a lot in order to give victims like you the correct advice using correct spelling , so that you and others are not misled by me