Private PCN appeal - as the named Driver

olodoeje

I recently borrowed my cousin's vehicle to attend to an emergency and, without realizing, I parked in my residential parking space. My cousin then received a PCN from the Parking Admin Centre, the private parking company, and subsequently named me as the driver, since I live in the building. I have now received the PCN as the named driver, and i want to appeal this as this is my home parking space. Also, by the time I got the PCN, the 14 days deadline for paying the reduced fee had already passed.

I would like to appeal this PCN. I have looked through the Newbies thread but cannot find a template that applies to this situation. Could anyone kindly share a suitable template for appealing a PCN as the named driver?

1505grandad

"....PCN from the Parking Admin Centre, the private parking company....."

Just checking  -  do you mean the ppc is:-

UK Parking Administration Ltd

olodoeje

Ye1505grandad said:

"....PCN from the Parking Admin Centre, the private parking company....."

Just checking  -  do you mean the ppc is:-

UK Parking Administration Ltd

The Creditor is ALL PARKING SERVICES UK LTD. The letterhead name is however Parking Admin Centre.

Please, do you have a template for an appeal to this ppc?

Coupon-mad

olodoeje said:

I recently borrowed my cousin's vehicle to attend to an emergency and, without realizing, I parked in my residential parking space. My cousin then received a PCN from the Parking Admin Centre, the private parking company, and subsequently named me as the driver, since I live in the building. I have now received the PCN as the named driver, and i want to appeal this as this is my home parking space. Also, by the time I got the PCN, the 14 days deadline for paying the reduced fee had already passed.

Amazing (not!) how often this happens, especially noticeable when DRAs are doing the back office 'work' under names like 'Parking Admin Centre' as is happening here.

The 'date sent' of the NTK always appears to be false; ahem! It's almost as if DRA firms don't want people to be able to pay at the discount. Quelle surprise...

@ChirpyChicken: is this SolutionLabs or ZZPS?

You just appeal with a copy of your permit, citing the Joint Code of Practice clause about operators not being allowed to pursue cases against residents whose leases entitle them to a grant of parking, allocated bay, rights & easements etc. which always take precedence.

They won't accept it (course not!) but that's not the point and you'll never pay this charge. This is just about you narrowing the issues and looking reasonable, providing a copy of your tenancy agreement if it shows an allocated bay) and a copy of your permit, as evidence before ignoring them.

Then you just ignore the £170 threatograms just as the MSE Guide says to do, contacting the scammers only if you move house within 6 years. They MUST have your right address at all times and you must stay on top of that.

That is all.

You could also see if your Managing Agents, Housing Association or private landlord:

-  will assist to get this one cancelled

AND

- to tell them you want your allocated bay opted out of this moneymaking commercial scam because it's a third party interfering in your rights by hawking out YOUR BAY to all-comers by offering it at £100 per day to anyone. Object!

This is a derogation from grant. Read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1

DO NOT WOBBLE AND PAY AT ANY STAGE. DO NOT PAY TO MAKE IT GO AWAY.

ChirpyChicken

@Coupon-mad thats ZZPS

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

@Coupon-mad thats ZZPS

Ta.

ZZPS, DR Plus and SolutionLabs all use similar generic names when acting for PPCs at NTK early stage. Names that are just not in my head!

olodoeje

Thanks a lot guy. I am using the template below for my appeal and hope it works. 

"""
I am writing to formally appeal the above Parking Charge Notice issued to me as the named driver.

I reside at ---- and hold rights under my tenancy agreement/lease to park in the residential car park. Please find attached a copy of my tenancy agreement confirming my right to use the parking space.

As you will be aware, under the Joint Code of Practice for Private Parking Enforcement, operators must not issue or pursue charges against residents where a tenancy agreement, lease, or title grants parking rights, allocated bays, rights of way, or easements. Such rights take primacy over any later private parking scheme, signage, or contract terms imposed by a third-party operator.

For the avoidance of doubt:

• My right to park derives from my tenancy and cannot be overridden by your terms.

• I am under no obligation to display a permit or comply with conditions which are inconsistent with my tenancy rights.

• The purported “contract” you allege is void in my case, as my pre-existing rights take precedence.

Accordingly, the Parking Charge Notice is invalid and must be cancelled immediately.

Please confirm in writing that this charge has been cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, I require a POPLA code so that I may escalate the matter to the independent appeals service.

"""

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

@Coupon-mad thats ZZPS

Ta.

ZZPS, DR Plus and SolutionLabs all use similar generic names when acting for PPCs at NTK early stage. Names that are just not in my head!

@Coupon-mad Not sure if you have ever seen this https://regentparking.co.uk and http://startinparking.com/

From Solutionlabs

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

@Coupon-mad thats ZZPS

Ta.

ZZPS, DR Plus and SolutionLabs all use similar generic names when acting for PPCs at NTK early stage. Names that are just not in my head!

@Coupon-mad Not sure if you have ever seen this https://regentparking.co.uk and http://startinparking.com/

From Solutionlabs

Seen the first one, not the second. Regent Parking always looked questionable, as if it is letting unregulated businesses use its KADOE link and using the name 'Regent Parking' on signs and paperwork even though (it seems, with these 'new start-ups') they aren't the creditor at all.