PCM - Sugar House Island

Nylamummy

Image 6.jpg

Image 5.jpg

I seem to be unlucky of late and seem to be acquiring parking tickets :-(

I received one yesterday and want to appeal, as I feel it is unfair. I have drafted the email below, and attached some photos of what the space looked like. Your thoughts would be appreciated…..

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice PCXXXXXXX – Vehicle Registration XXX

I wish to appeal Parking Charge Notice PCXXXXX

I was attending a one-off training course at Sugar House Island and had never previously visited the location.

I did not intentionally park in a disabled bay and was genuinely unaware that the space was designated for disabled users.

The designation was not clearly visible from a driver's perspective when entering or parking in the space. There was no disabled parking sign mounted on any wall immediately adjacent to the parking space, nor any prominent sign directly in front of the bay that would have alerted a driver to the restriction when manoeuvring into position.

The only sign visible appears to be positioned some distance away from the bay and was partially obscured by a Bentley vehicle parked directly in front of it. That vehicle was already parked there when I arrived and remained there after I left. To the best of my knowledge, it was not displaying a disabled badge or permit, yet no parking charge notice appeared to have been issued. As a first-time visitor, seeing another vehicle parked in that location without any visible permit reinforced my belief that the area was available for general parking.

In addition, the only sign relied upon by PCM was located on a pole at the opposite end of the bay rather than adjacent to the parking space itself. The sign contains a large amount of text in relatively small print, which is difficult to read from a vehicle or from a distance. Where another vehicle is parked directly in front of the sign, as was the case when I arrived, visibility of both the sign and its contents is significantly obstructed. A driver would be required to leave their vehicle and walk over to the sign in order to read the terms and conditions. In these circumstances, the restriction was not brought to the attention of motorists in a sufficiently clear or prominent manner before parking.

After receiving the notice, I returned to inspect the location and discovered that the only disabled designation associated with the bay was a marking on the ground. Once my vehicle was parked, this marking was largely underneath the vehicle and therefore not visible when exiting the car. From the driver's seat when approaching and parking, the marking did not stand out as a disabled bay and simply appeared to form part of the brickwork pattern and surface design. When I exited my vehicle, I was unable to see any disabled symbol beneath the car.

Furthermore, the bay lacked the high visibility features that drivers would ordinarily expect to identify a disabled parking space. There were no prominent painted boundary markings, no highly visible upright sign immediately adjacent to the bay, and no conspicuous markings visible from a driver's normal line of sight when entering the space. The signage and markings were therefore insufficient to clearly communicate the restriction before parking.

As a first-time visitor, I relied on the signage and markings that were reasonably visible from a driver's perspective. Had there been a clearly visible sign adjacent to the bay, or prominent disabled bay markings visible before parking, I would not have parked there.

I was a legitimate visitor attending a course at the premises and gained no advantage from parking in the location. This was an honest mistake arising from unclear and insufficient signage rather than any deliberate breach of the parking terms.

The combination of an obscured pole-mounted sign, the absence of any sign immediately adjacent to the bay, the lack of high-visibility disabled bay markings, and the fact that the ground marking is difficult to see from a vehicle either backing-in or driving into the space, and then became hidden beneath the parked vehicle meant that the alleged restriction was not adequately brought to my attention before parking.

In the circumstances, I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Should you refuse this appeal, please provide:

1. A site plan showing the exact location of all signs relied upon.
2. Photographs demonstrating the driver's view of the signage before parking.
3. Evidence that the disabled bay signage and markings were sufficiently prominent to be seen before parking.
4. Evidence of the landowner authority permitting PCM to issue and pursue parking charges at this site.
5. Evidence that the signage and bay markings comply with the IPC Code of Practice.

I look forward to your confirmation that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Jame4ters

Post a copy of the NTK

Have you read the “Newbies” thread? If not then that tells you what to do

Nylamummy

I assume my ticket is the NTK? Thank you

Nylamummy

The little square was in the middle of the parking space had a little disabled badge engraved into it - to be honest, when driving in , from the position of my car, I never even saw it. It was then underneath my car after parking. No signage adjacent to the parking slot, only a sign at the end of the bay, which a vehicle was already parked I. Front of and which I thought only related to that bay (I saw this on returning, not when I parked my car). No signage on walls etc or high visibility road makings to show it was a disabled space.

yarpsnehpets

The 'ticket' as you call it is actually a Notice to Driver (NtD).

You maybe better off waiting for the NtK to be issued as it gives you more time for the operator to mess up the correct process.

And you should stop saying "I did this and I did that" as you are revealing the driver.

The driver should never be revealed in any communications (or posts online).

James_Poisson

Sorry but that appeal (email?) is a waste of time, they won't take any notice they will just reply it is the driver's responsibility to read the T&Cs on the signs which are clearly displayed all over the site. You are perfectly correct though that by the looks of it the signage is totally unacceptable and does not conform the the joint COP, that email would be better sent to the landowner than a scamming PPC.

Just an observation though, you do seem to be a little careless in accumulating private parking tickets, so should be on track to know how to deal with this.

Follow @Jame4ters advice above, you are not dealing with reasonable people you are dealing with greedy chancers that have hit on a way to make money which is their only interest.

The whole area has abysmal signage which I would say has been designed to blend in with the development on purpose probably at the behest of the landowner:

Nylamummy

Thank you for your replies, I just became a bit panicked at the 14 day appeal deadline. I will wait for the NTK - and follow the guidelines. All the best x

Car1980

That plaque on the ground is obviously completely inadequate.

But wait for the NtK.

To be honest there is no point appealing at all since they're a crooked IAS member - unless the NtK is defective.

If the NtK is fine the only thing to do IMO is to inform CPM you won't be paying and the driver or keeper will be delighted to go in front of a judge and argue that a small plaque on the ground is wholly inadequate for a contract to be formed.

Nylamummy

Also, the Bentley parked right in front of the sign and had no disability badge - and no ticket either (it was parked there before and after I arrived) - must either be the landowner or the parking attendant is being choosy on who he/she issues tickets too :-(

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82037952#Comment_82037952

All along, I thought that it was your Bentley! 🙈😄