Parking Charge at High Point Village/Hayes and Harlington Train Station (PCM, from IPC)

estevenin

Hi all

Received this joke by post, "Parked outside of the confines of a marked bay". This must be the biggest joke of all times. Anyway, I'v seen plenty of posts about this location on the forum, so I'll start the process and intend to defend in full.

- No parking took place, the allegation is incorrect.
- The car was stopped - sort of - within the bay.
- You have to park, get out of the car, to be able to notice and read those signs. This didn't happen because no parking took place and there was no time for it. So when no parking takes place, there can be no acknoledgement of the (hidden) contract.
- Exactly 33 seconds between the first and the last picture of the car. Plenty of time to ask the driver to move if they cared so dearly about it.

You can see the people's faces in the pictures, surely that's not meant to happen either.

Anyway,

Here is the NTK (No windscreen invoice) : :https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8xypuc7cakkzjncdrc6vd/PARKING-CHARGE-Copie.pdf?rlkey=xkbvvnvm65xbybk678l7ri9rd&dl=0

Pictures : 









Step 1 : Complain to the landowner on the way, by post :

***

The Chairman

Ballymore Group United Kingdom

161 Marsh Wall

London E14 9SJ

United Kingdom

Tel. +44 20 7510 9100

Fax. +44 20 7510 9110

Your agent, PCM, is issuing large numbers of parking charge notices at Hayes and Harlington station to unsuspecting customers, in breach of its contract with you, by not allowing your customers to drop off / pick up passengers, even when it's only a matter of seconds. PCM then obtains the personal information of the vehicles' registered keepers from DVLA without reasonable cause and issues each of them with a £100 parking charge notice. This is exactly what has happened to me.

It is clear from your contract with PCM, which was revealed at a recent court hearing, that you wish to allow customers to be dropped off or picked up at Hayes and Harlington station. I therefore request that you instruct PCM to cease and desist from targeting your customers in this way. Please confirm to me that this has been done with 14 days.

PCM doesn't care about your customers, except to farm them for as much money as possible.

The Data Protection Act provides data subjects with a legal remedy when a data controller processes personal data unlawfully, by way of damages and compensation for distress. Recent case-law (i.e. Halliday -v- Creation Consumer Finance Limited [2013] EWCA) supports a quantum of £750 for a single breach of the Data Protection Act. As PCM is your agent, you are jointly and severally liable for its unlawful actions.

If PCM does not immediately cease and desist from processing my personal data, and cancel its penalty charge notice to me then I hereby give notice that I will commence legal action against PCM and you for compensation and damages, including punitive or exemplary damages. I would prefer not to do this but I will be left with little choice if you don't call off your dogs.

Yours faithfully,
***

Step 2 : I have now "appealed" using the current template in the newbies thread, waiting for their rejection, I'll keep this post updated with the next step :

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.

Gr1pr

Its a well known sc@m site, the road is private, so that side is controlled by the landowner of the flats, not the station 

Read the other threads on here about the same issues, plenty of other victims 

Coupon-mad

I really like the style of your complaint and 100% encourage you to fight PCM (ex-clamper chancers who were outed as Rogue Traders on BBC Watchdog years ago).

But you do need to be much more careful to park within bays.  I'd never have stopped like that on those bay lines, and certainly never on private land. That's not within a bay and is miles away from the kerb.  I can see why they targeted you, unfortunately.

estevenin

Hi all, update on this case.

1. Response from the "land owner". They passed on the letter to their managing agents, which I presume, are the ones that have hired PCM : 

We refer to your letter of 5 November addressed to our client, Ballymore. We act for Ballymore as managing agent of its High Point Village development in Hayes. Our client’s development includes the majority of the road known as Station Approach. Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (“PCM”) is responsible for parking enforcement within the boundaries of our client’s development.

We cannot comment on the circumstances of other PCNs that may have been issued by PCM. However, there is signage erected on Station Road, which clearly states the following terms:

 Vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay – 20 mins max stay – no

return within 1 hr

 No stopping, waiting or drop / collection on the roadway or out of bay at any time

 No grace period applies

 Breach of any term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a parking charge of £100

 By entering or remaining on this land, you agree to abide by all of the Terms & Conditions

We have checked the position regarding your case with PCM. Your vehicle was in fact parked across two bays, in clear breach of the above parking terms. It was this that led to the PCN being issued against your vehicle – not the simple fact you were dropping off or picking up a passenger. Had you parked your vehicle within one of the two bays, you would have been entitled to remain there for up to 20 minutes.

I would also highlight that, while PCM is our client’s service provider, it does not process personal data for our client – all data is obtained directly from the DVLA by PCM in connection with the issue of PCNs. Neither we nor our client share any personal data with PCM and, as you are not a resident of the development, we do not hold your personal data in any event. PCM was entitled to obtain your details from the DVLA because your vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking notice.

To the extent you have any further complaint or request concerning either the PCN or your personal data, I would advise you to contact PCM directly.

I trust this clarifies the position.

2. Response from PCM : 

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above  Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I have considered your case  carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the  following grounds; 

The vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the  terms and conditions for the use of the private land on  which it was photographed. These terms and conditions are  clearly stipulated throughout the area and upon review, the operator is confident that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was correctly issued, in line with these signs. 

On this occasion, the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.

The advertised terms require vehicles to be parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay -whether they are marked by traditional white fines, differences on block paving or 'T' markings. The signage is cfear in outlining this and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms.

Photographie evidence provided below clearly shows the vehicle to be parked outside of a marked bay and thus, a PCN was properly issued. 

Your representation consists of a well-rehearsed template appeal that is heavily circulated on the internet and does not provide any direct response to your case. I mUst advise that none of the points you have raised hold any merit in terms of an appeal. 

The facts remain that the vehicle was parked out of a marked bay, contrary to the advertised terms and conditions. The vehicle was parked in close proximity a sign outlining these contractual obligations. Photographie evidence supports this and can be viewed online at www.paymypcn-uk.co.uk. 

In light of the above and upon review of your case, I am confident that this charge was correctly issued.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 

Full version : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cedw2miqnuwrl6c5ja66i/PCM-Response-Hidden.pdf?rlkey=s052z0zk1ca23pjnvan75vne4&dl=0

So now I have two choices, go through IAS, or ignore. The Newbie thread advises not to appeal to IAS, however, they say in their response that "they will engage with the IAS Appeals Procedure", so I am very much keen to call their bluff, as this will force them into more writing work - therefore more cost. I understand that this would have no consequences in a potential claim (if claim there is, correct me if I'm wrong), I'm not bothered and for me the more work I can give PCM to do, the better.

I'v drafted this for them, I'll take any further advice regarding writings or facts that I could include as well, I did not find anything wrong regarding POFA. Or if you'd insist not to do IAS, then I'll leave it as it is and I'll ignore all further letters until a LBC is received, which I think is very unlikely anyway given the absurdity of those rules

The main point, the one piece of law is the first point, is that the claim is for parking, rather than loading/unloading :

-------

Dear Sir, Madam,

I dispute the 'parking charge' XXXXX sent by PCM, as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement has taken place with PCM. PCM is seeking to recover monies after the vehicle was, I quote "Parked outside the confines of a marked bay", and I deny this claim for the following reasons :

The vehicle was not parked, there has been no breach of contract :

1. No parking has taken place. The vehicle was merely, briefly stopped, this is clearly visible on the picture from the PCN and PCM's own evidence pack: The boot is open, the driver is by the car, the engine is still on. PCM has no evidence of the contrary, as there is no time-period of parking mentionned on the PCN, only a one, fixed time-stamp. No evidence that the car has stayed for more than a few seconds.

2. Many high court cases have already stated what "parking" means. Here's a quote from the very persuasive court case, Jopson vs Homeguard, which was allowed by his honour Judge Harris QC, where it was stated that loading/unloading is not parking. It is mentioned that :

"20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture.

Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few momen for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it."

and

 "21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

The terms and conditions that PCM has provided, do not mention any prohibition on Loading/Unloading, and/or stopping, only for parking, and the claim is also only for parking.

That decision also includes commercial vehicles, and how they cannot reasonably or fairly be bound by 'parking' terms when visiting briefly in the course of normal daily work activity such as loading/unloading items (or passengers), highlighting those specific parts:

20. …Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes”…

21. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine … Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable

3. This is clearly a case of Loading/Unloading, and as Loading/Unloading cannot be deemed to be parking, again, there has been no breach of contract.

No visible sign at the time of visit

4. The evidence from PCM showing the car, does not show any sign beeing present near or around the car,

5. PCM has included a picture of a sign, but no indication as to where this sign is placed, or if it was there at the time of visit.

6. A quick google search allows for a pole to be seen, that seems to include a sign, which can't be read, not even one line. PCM has choosen to use very small font, therefore I assume you'd have to leave your car and stand below the sign, to be able to read the terms and conditions of the contract.

7. I deny that such sign, or the closup sent by PCM in their evidence pack, was present anywhere near the car at the time of visit, nor PCM has any evidence of the contrary. You'd have to be stopped in a very specific bay, to be by this sign.

8. Even if, by the luck of the draw, there would have been a sign by the bay where the car was parked (which I deny), it is clear that this specific sign, could never be read - or noticed for that matter - by a vehicle in movement. It would have to be noticed by a motorist, looking for parking signs after parking a car.

No parking has taken place and therefore no sign could be noticed or read, therefore no breach of contract could be claimed.

Absurd and abusive terms and conditions

9. The BCA code of practice, mentions that any motorist must be given a grace period, in order to be familiar with the rules and conditions of the site, before deciding to park their vehicle.

10. PCM has included the following, absurd term : "No grace period applies".

11. PCM is not a member of the BCA, and when reading this term, we can understand why - they would immediately be in breach of the BCA code of practice.

12. However, this does not prevent parking companies from using common sense: A motorist can not, physically, get familiar with the terms and conditions of any given location, without having previously left their car in stand-still, and look for nearby signs.

13. The sign shown in PCN pictures, seems to be very long, written in very small letter. Not even readable from their own pictures, and they have so far failed to send a full readable version, despite my request in my initial appeal with them. However, this is a very complex and hard to read sign, it will require attention, and could only be read from a pedestrian perspective, certainly not from a vehicle in movement.

14. Therefore, the very nature of this sign, would force them to allow for a grace period, before applying a PCN. And no grace period has been given, nor PCM has evidence of the contrary.

15. If PCM tries to argue that their "No grace period" term allows them to apply a PCN at any time and at will, they would rely on an absurd, not to say abusive term and condition : The only way to be aware of this very term and condition, would be to break the term and condition in the first place.

16. As far as we know, it could also be that the driver stopped the car, saw the sign, and was about to move the car within the bay - or leave -, but if that would have been the case - which I deny - this mean that the driver would have already breached the terms and conditions, yet has been given no chance to obey them.

Such condition is abusive, and any judge would deem this condition "not written". If deemed not written, then a grace period should be given, and it is obvious that no grace period has been given, as we can see the driver in PCM's pictures, and no time-period is mentionned in the PCN.

As a consequence and without grace period, the driver could not be made aware of the terms and conditions, and without beeing allowed to do so, there could be no breach of contract.

De-minimis

17. De minimis is a legal principle which allows matters of insufficient importance or small scale to be exempted from a rule or requirement. Something regarded by a court or a party as too small, too trivial or immaterial to be meaningful or taken into consideration.

18. The PCN mentions "Parked outside the confines of a marked bay", and based on PCM's own pictures, this is factually incorrect, as the car can see beeing within the lines - the bay - It is not in the middle of the road for that matter, it has safely stopped, near the pavement, inside the white line. I accept that it is not perfectly stopped, but it is definitely safely stopped, and a fair margin of error should be allowed for every motorist, as it is a very common thing not to have a perfect aim, this is clearly within the De-minimis scope.

19. I assume that the vertical lines are meant to seperate several bays, and if so, then the behicles would stopped between two bays, but still inside those bays.

20. This is merely a car that would have badly stopped, without causing any meaningful harm or would be considered beeing "Parked outside the confines of a marked bay", as only a few centimeters are seen on another bay.

21. The simple fact that the Parking Attendant is taking the pictures whilst the driver is innocently standing by the car, unaware of such a restriction, is merely an admission from PCM, that this matter is to trivial to pursue: The Parking Attendant could simply have reached to the driver, and asked him to move the car a bit further, any person that would be bothered by the situation would have done so, this is simply commin sense. He hasn't done so, nor PCM has produced evidence of the contrary.

22. Instead, this rather seems to be an abusive attempt to rip-off an unaware motorist, by claiming monies after redacting some "never seen before" terms and conditions, impossible to comply with, hard to read, and impossible to be seen anyway by a vehicle in movment.

If I erect a small sign, with small letter in by my front porch "Do not step, or pay 100GBP", the postman (unaware of such restriction) step on the front porch, get close enough to finally see the sign, yet he is now here so I take a picture of him, the postman may or may not see the sign and leave, but I do have the picture and will claim this 100GBP from him, this is abusive, and this case is exactly the same.

For those reasons, I found that the contract contains abusive, absurd terms, and that there has been no breach of contract and I kindly ask for that PCN to be dismissed.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Go for it!  Only because you know it's futile and are keen to waste the time of PCM & the IAS, neither of which has ever earned respect.

Might be worth trying this week because they only have 21 days to respond to the IAS. PCM might not have the staff and have been known not to contest IAS appeals.

1505grandad

Just wondering  -  several references to "BCA"  -  who or what is that?

Nellymoser

Spelling errors beeing. There's only one e in being.

estevenin

1505grandad said:

Just wondering  -  several references to "BCA"  -  who or what is that?

Sorry that was BPA, corrected, thanks

Nellymoser said:

Spelling errors beeing. There's only one e in being.

Thanks, corrected

Coupon-mad said:

Go for it!  Only because you know it's futile and are keen to waste the time of PCM & the IAS, neither of which has ever earned respect.

Might be worth trying this week because they only have 21 days to respond to the IAS. PCM might not have the staff and have been known not to contest IAS appeals.

All done, thanks. Will update the case later!

estevenin

Update after response from IAS, as expected, dismissed. Here's the answer for entertainment purposes :

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Images, including a site map and site photographs have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. The Appellant's contention that the signage is insufficient, which is not supported by any evidence is not accepted. It is the driver's responsibility to read the signage, including exiting the vehicle to do so if necessary.

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. In the photographs provided I can see that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay/was parked across two bays. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The courts have interpreted vehicles that are stationary on private land as being parked within the meaning of the signage, irrespective of the period parked and factors such as whether the driver remained with the vehicle, the engine remained running etc. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the Appellant was parked on this occasion and the Appellant's assertion to the contrary is not accepted. Grace periods only apply to a period of permitted parking and therefore are not applicable in these circumstances and no parking outside marked bays is permitted. The Appellant is also quoting the incorrect code of practice (the Operator being a member of the IAS not BPA). As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed"

It's actually quite funny, they have written "It is the driver's responsibility to read the signage, including exiting the vehicle to do so if necessary". It is actually not allowed to get out of the vehicle.

So I suppose the next step is to ignore every communication that I receive from the Parking Company (or should I politely decline - or refer them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971) - to pay ?), until there is a potential small claim for this case ? So I should be in peace for a couple of months or so. 

Gr1pr

They have 6 years from the incident date to sue you via MCOL,  a few months is neither here nor there 

Ignore the debt collectors letters,  come back to this thread if or when you receive a Letter of Claim followed by a court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton