Advice for PCN with incorrect location address

Czure

Hopefully I've understood the Newbie advice in starting a new thread, if not apologies in advance. I wanted to ask if anyone knows if a PCN can be dismissed if the notice states the incorrect address for the offence, even though it was close by?

Details are-
Grandsons received a PCN from Park Direct UK (in the form of a NTK) for parking in a no parking area stating the following- Location: r/o 233 High Street, UB8 1LD. That address is for a Pool Bar on the main road which he neither visited nor went near.

The address above is in fact 249ft away from where he actually parked which was in a parking bay down an unnamed right hand side turning next to a fast food cabin with the address of: 223 High Street UB8 1LD. 2 photos are included of his car parked in the bay & the location can be clearly identified as not at or near 233 High Street.

Now he did park were he shouldn't have so even if overturned I wouldn't be surprised if a new PCN wasn't sent with the correct address. However in his defence although there are several signs attached to a low wall that runs alongside the bays, these were all obscured at the time by parked vehicles, maintenance equipment, & bins so he failed to see them, but of course he took no photos of this not knowing they may be needed.

There's also signs on the sides of the buildings opposite the bays but they can easily be considered to be for parking along that side as there are no bays there.

So although he did park were he shouldn't have & despite the circumstances, my question remains regarding the incorrect location being given. Can the PCN be overturned?

TIA for any replies.

PS. My grandson was on his way home for the weekend from his Army Barracks & had stopped off to grab some scoff from a nearby Taco Bell when this occurred, so I used Google Maps in Street View mode to view the area & signs mentioned as we are in Manchester so defo not practical driving there to check it out.

Coupon-mad

we are in Manchester

Great! The judges in Manchester hate parking claims so the Defendant would be pushing against an open door.

He could try an appeal (the registered keeper, is that him?) but he would have to prove with evidence that the address is wrong.

If the appeal fails he STILL IGNORES.

Czure

Yep, strongly feel that an appeal would be wasted time due to the only real discrepancy being 233 instead of 223, plus even if successful the issuer probably just issue another PCN with the address corrected anyway.

I was just more curious to see if anyone else has ever run into same kind of issue, particularly with signage placed next to the parking bays were they can be so easily obscured by parked vehicles, bins, etc & given location where car actually parked was down what appears to be an unnamed side turning (the fast food cabin I guess has only been given the 223 High Street address as it's just inside that side turning & there's no other street or road name available for it).

He is going to pay the reduced £60 charge to save wasting our time & if one thing at least has come of it, it'll ensure he's more weary in future & looks more closely for any signage that's obscured in any way.

Coupon-mad

"even if successful the issuer probably just issue another PCN with the address corrected anyway."

That has never happened. It won't.

"He is going to pay the reduced £60 charge".

Eeekk NO!

That's sponsoring the whole scam and funding the next PCNs. Literally nobody here does that and in my case, my family would be embarrassed if any of us even thought about paying a scam PCN to make it go away!

Even if he is 'weary' ( = tired!) no paying it!

Czure

Weary was a typo, meant to be 'wary' & take more notice of signage where he parks as he was after all sadly parked in a no public parking area, even though he didn't realise it at the time due to signs being obscured.

As for not paying though, what then do you suggest he do?

If it's appeal with Park Direct they'll refuse it for such a minor address discrepancy (& if they don't re-issue with address corrected), then the only step left is appeal through IAS as they're a member of the IPC, not the BPA.

Everything I've seen & read about IAS is they're a waste of space with around only a 6% success rate in recent years & very minor errors with location addresses are literally guaranteed to be refused any appeal.

So, if unpaid before end of 14 days the amount increases to £100.
He 100% has to avoid any possible action that can lead to any kind of bad mark on his file or worse a Court Judgement as he'll be applying for a mortgage around September, so just refusing to pay in the hopes it goes away seems too big a risk!

Car1980

The only risk is if any court claim goes AWOL because your grandson is in barracks (see what I did there 🤣)

The money obviously isn't owed. Obscurred sign = no contract.

But the IAS is corrupt as you've stated.

If I was your grandson I would simply transfer liability.

By his recollection the driver was an older gentleman who lives in Manchester. Therefore he should inform Park Direct of the name and address of this gentleman.

Coupon-mad

You don't risk nor get a CCJ by following out advice but good people certainly don't pay private parking charges all the time this sector remains unregulated.

Czure

Quick update.

Didn't intend simply ignoring so I left it till 1 day before charge increase cut off & sent appeal in to Park Direct stating that photos were of a different location to the address on NTK & that they were actually of the vehicle parked in an unnamed side road & not on the main road location or address they stated.

Refused of course as 100% expected so have now just appealed to the bent waste of space IAS & await the refusal from them, again 100% guaranteed.

As mentioned there's no way grandson can risk even the remotest possibility of any form of comeback so although I've seen some folk saying not to inform them of who the driver was I informed them that it was myself thus placing any liability onto myself.

All other communications received from now on from the likes of IAS, Gladstones etc will be ignored & if it should by any chance come to legal action they're welcome to do their best. I shall not be paying a penny to the scum & as I'm terminally ill with a possible couple of years left at most I frankly don't give a flying F**K.
My only concern now is that for as long as I'm still capable of doing so in any way possible that I help & protect my loved ones, but most certainly not in helping make thieving filth wealthy.

I believe IAS & Gladstones legally separated their business interests because of the conflict of interest, BUT of course John Davies has now simply become sole director of Gladstones whilst Will Hurley is now solely IAS, in other words the whole joke & all involved still as bent as 10 Bob notes.

Johnersh

As a member of the armed forces there are specific rules for service. It is proper fiddly. It may be advantageous to name the driver's address for service as his place of work.

There is no need to point out a pre-issue mistake, so it may suffice to deny parking at that address and breaching terms.

Of course there is a risk that the typo is rectified on the claim form. Care is needed.