Parking charge whilst delivering

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Shall I still mention the covert cctv and lack of clear signage?

Yes, this is the whole point (leading to an ICO complaint, because the appeal won't actually work) and you must say in the first appeal that you will report the covert camera surveillance to the ICO and to your MP, so UKCPM must consider this a formal complaint. You can add that there is no prominent, visible warning of filming by CCTV as a vehicle enters this side road, nor what the images will be used for. This is illegal (DPA 2018 breach).

Not only that; but, Queens Road is a public highway and members of the public are being filmed on it.

Makaveli2025

James_Poisson said:

Also that PCN is rubbish, the signage such as it is states that ANPR cameras are in use but they aren't, they are clearly CCTV and the photo grabs on the PCN show surveillance not a VRN capture, and there is no period of on site time only a time.

The accusation is also not parked in a marked bay, however that could be a marked bay but it is so faded who would know.

The signage calls for a valid permit, which you didn't have so you were trespassing and the idiots cannot impose a fee for trespass, there was no contract offered.

If it still looks like this the signage is non complient:

There used be a private taxi rank there many years ago. The markings of the bay are practically non existent now and its not used as rank any longer.

Makaveli2025

So this is my draft response, please do tell me if I'm waffling and if it needs condensing, I dont mind lol. If I need to add anything else let me know 😅
@Coupon-mad
@Gr1pr
@James_Poisson
@Car1980
@Castle


'As the registered keeper of the vehicle I vehemently reject that any parking breach occurred.

Firstly, there were/are no prominent or clearly  visible signs before the side street that indicates that the street is private property.
The 'reason'  for the fine I.e 'Parked outside of marked bay' is not valid as there are no clearly visible bays on the street itself.
The PCN doesn't mention the duration of the waiting time onsite. There was no fair consideration period given either or any mention of a said/discretionary period.

Your not so clear signs mention that the area is monitored by ANPR (a site visit was made post PCN and the signs were inspected).
The photos you provided are not from an ANPR camera. Rather, they are from covert cctv surveillance, again there is no clearly visible/prominent warning signs about the use/filming of cctv and what the images will be used for.
This is illegal according to the Data Protection Act 2018. You do realise that you are filming a public highway, namely Queens Road, filming the public without informing them is also illegal.
This flagrant misuse and covert surveillance will be reported to the ICO, my local MP and the City Council.

Lastly, the vehicle was not parked but was loading (making a delivery) as can be clearly seen in the 2nd picture of the PCN you issued. 
The vehicle did not enter the carpark at all, again your not very clear signs mention the carpark but no mention is made of the street or that its part of the carpark.
The vehicle was pulled over on the side street for legitimate reasons as mentioned earlier.
Please see Jopson v Homeguard for the definition of parking.

I just want to reiterate that I will be making a formal complaint to the bodies mentioned earlier for the unscrupulous behaviour of UKCPM.
Therefore it's imperative that UKCPM regards this as a formal complaint.'

James_Poisson

You have on one hand shown that you have done some research, and then used the term "fine" I would bin that term they will think you have been sucked in with their quest to look authoritative, use a word like charge or  fee.

You have missed out that you did not enter into a contract, as on later investigation what signs there are do not form a contract being prohibitive and not offering you any chargeable service. 

But don't be under any illusions that it will work, the dimlow that reads it will just file a semi template reply and ignore most of it.

Makaveli2025

James_Poisson said:

You have on one hand shown that you have done some research, and then used the term "fine" I would bin that term they will think you have been sucked in with their quest to look authoritative, use a word like charge or  fee.

You have missed out that you did not enter into a contract, as on later investigation what signs there are do not form a contract being prohibitive and not offering you any chargeable service. 

But don't be under any illusions that it will work, the dimlow that reads it will just file a semi template reply and ignore most of it.

Yeh, I don't expect them to pay any real attention to the points raised. I'm only replying as a formality and to go through the motions.

Makaveli2025

So I've submitted my appeal. I received the following confirmation....


Should I upload the photos I took on my site visit or would it be pointless? @James_Poisson @Coupon-mad @Gr1pr @Castle @Car1980

Also, thanks a bunch for the help to all of you tagged. I think I tagged you all 😅