National Parking Control PCN

RazBurley

Hi, just need advice please.

My friend have received attached pcn from NPC for not parking within bay. 

Is the pcn compliant with pofa and anything can be done?

Its a residential car park and he lives there. Bay marking are not very clear and there are few signs but none on entry.

I have attached couple mpre pics of car park.

Thorndorise

Generally NPC PCNs are Pofa compliant, this looks to be unless any of the more experience folk on here tell you otherwise, check @Coupon-mad's links from the newbies thread for examples.

Honestly, this is a tricky one, in that photo it looks like the driver has parked miles away from the lines in front, Granted they are not clear, and tbh they look too small to fit a car in anyway.

Something that caught my eye (and zooming in isn't able to clarify this), the first image on the PCN seems to be very similar looking to the second image (notably this is the first time stamp of 21:13:41) The timestamp for that first image is blurred, it looks like either you've done it, it's not a clear photo or that the original time stamp on the actual PCN is not clear....hence my question they look like exactly the time of day, but different angles...

What is the time stamp on that first image?

Both NPC and IPC's IAS route are pointless in terms of appeals, with almost zero to no chance of a turnaround.

You're best off waiting for the standard DRA letters, normally 3 from DCBL then 1 from DCB Legal, then a letter before/of claim, which inevitably, if fearlessly challenged using the strong words posted many a time, will be dropped before court...

One other thing I would say, personally my view is that NPC also do not have the correct permissions in their privacy policy to use legitimate interest to share your personal details onwards to DCBL. Lots of gumph on that on here, but in short they don't specifically call out that they will share your data with any DRA, they merely have DCBL listed in their privacy policy - this could mean anything, and most likely means Doubt Clueless B***ards Litigate.

Silly question maybe, but if he lives there - how did he not know to park in the bays? - I'm being daft of course...was there a car there when he parked covering the lines etc...also how long have the awful NPC been the car park managers and do they have precedence over your friends right to park there under their lease? - I'll leave others to comment on that.

RazBurley

Thorndorise said:

Generally NPC PCNs are Pofa compliant, this looks to be unless any of the more experience folk on here tell you otherwise, check @Coupon-mad's links from the newbies thread for examples.

Honestly, this is a tricky one, in that photo it looks like the driver has parked miles away from the lines in front, Granted they are not clear, and tbh they look too small to fit a car in anyway.

Something that caught my eye (and zooming in isn't able to clarify this), the first image on the PCN seems to be very similar looking to the second image (notably this is the first time stamp of 21:13:41) The timestamp for that first image is blurred, it looks like either you've done it, it's not a clear photo or that the original time stamp on the actual PCN is not clear....hence my question they look like exactly the time of day, but different angles...

What is the time stamp on that first image?

Both NPC and IPC's IAS route are pointless in terms of appeals, with almost zero to no chance of a turnaround.

You're best off waiting for the standard DRA letters, normally 3 from DCBL then 1 from DCB Legal, then a letter before/of claim, which inevitably, if fearlessly challenged using the strong words posted many a time, will be dropped before court...

One other thing I would say, personally my view is that NPC also do not have the correct permissions in their privacy policy to use legitimate interest to share your personal details onwards to DCBL. Lots of gumph on that on here, but in short they don't specifically call out that they will share your data with any DRA, they merely have DCBL listed in their privacy policy - this could mean anything, and most likely means Doubt Clueless B***ards Litigate.

Silly question maybe, but if he lives there - how did he not know to park in the bays? - I'm being daft of course...was there a car there when he parked covering the lines etc...also how long have the awful NPC been the car park managers and do they have precedence over your friends right to park there under their lease? - I'll leave others to comment on that.

Hi,

Thanks for your details comment.

Yes you are right. I noticed now that they look the same pic, i think the top one is just zoomed in nad cropped, also i have looked athe original pcn and time stamp on top pic has been blured by the company. The bottom pic time stamp is 21.13.52 and pcn says observation period. 21.13 41 to 21.42.20 which is not on any photograph of the car.

I don't know if any of these discrepancies can help with appeal?

Thank you

Thorndorise

RazBurley said:

Thorndorise said:

Generally NPC PCNs are Pofa compliant, this looks to be unless any of the more experience folk on here tell you otherwise, check @Coupon-mad's links from the newbies thread for examples.

......

Silly question maybe, but if he lives there - how did he not know to park in the bays? - I'm being daft of course...was there a car there when he parked covering the lines etc...also how long have the awful NPC been the car park managers and do they have precedence over your friends right to park there under their lease? - I'll leave others to comment on that.

Hi,

Thanks for your details comment.

Yes you are right. I noticed now that they look the same pic, i think the top one is just zoomed in nad cropped, also i have looked athe original pcn and time stamp on top pic has been blured by the company. The bottom pic time stamp is 21.13.52 and pcn says observation period. 21.13 41 to 21.42.20 which is not on any photograph of the car.

I don't know if any of these discrepancies can help with appeal?

Thank you

So, yes and no - I'm not convinced it's a cropped version of the pic, although I was zooming and using the magnifier, the car angle (height) looks different - but it does seem that the second time stamp picture is deliberately obscured - this makes me think that I may be wrong on that first point and it is the same pic.

If they have deliberately blurred it, you have to asked why they've done that - and is that reflective of the original photos.

Get our friend to log in as if they were going to pay - DON'T pay obviously, but it will allow you to see all the pics that are assigned with the PCN. Screenshot them as evidence - it seems some skullduggery is occurring here from NPC (at least based on the facts I see before me).

Coupon-mad

Why doesn't the friend just log in as if to appeal and see how many pics they actually have and the timestamps on each?

Tell him NOT to pay.

Tell him NOT to park like that ever again.

It's cheaper (and with far less PCN risk) to park on street on a Council double yellow line, than park like that where a PPC is waiting to pounce at £100 a pop. Which he WON'T be paying but he doesn't need this harassment.

Why is he even living at a place with NPC infesting it? Nobody I know with a car would ever live there (I am being serious).

Nobody should accept private parking fake permit schemes at your own home. It blights property values and ruins lives for residents. A no-go site, IMHO. There is also no appeal because NPC aren't BPA.

RazBurley

Hi, 

Thank you for the comments.

I asked him to check other pics on their website, but unfortunately, he has paid the charge even though i asked him not to pay. 

But it looks like NPC is doing something doggy. 

Why IPC even exist if they are not fair. There should be only one BPA. 

Thorndorise

RazBurley said:

Hi, 

Thank you for the comments.

I asked him to check other pics on their website, but unfortunately, he has paid the charge even though i asked him not to pay. 

But it looks like NPC is doing something doggy. 

Why IPC even exist if they are not fair. There should be only one BPA. 

This is terrible news .. tell your friend he's just supported those eejits to carry on doing what they do - scamming folk.

IPC are just one of two bad eggs! There shouldn't be only one BPA, there should be an independent regulator imho.!

I know it would be useful to see a better quality image of those pics, if at all possible I'm sure that it would support the cause to stop this outrageous approach to charging.