Help! High Point Village Hayes & Harlington PCN from PCM

Coupon-mad

In that case do an IAS appeal because:

• there is no compliant entrance sign (quote the Code);
• there is a confused mix of faded surface messages and double yellow lines, the on-street meaning of which positively allows passenger pick up and drop off;
• There is nothing to say these double yellows have a different meaning than the norm;
• nothing on a sign or surface markings says 'restricted area' and the car is pictured on plain tarmac, so the alleged contravention didn't occur;
• the car is only shown for a minute, and dropping off a passenger is exempt activity, not parking;
• there is a weird attempt to mimic a no-stopping zone but that would require double red lines, not yellow.
• Per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, ambiguous terms must be interpreted in the way which most favours the consumer. This wasn't a restricted bay or area of tarmac.

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094745#Comment_82094745

Okay I'm going to send an appeal to PCM first with the little hope I have that they'll cancel it. Should I just mention the no entrance sign and remove the other things about terms and conditions? Even if I say I stopped to drop off the cant do anything right because it's been 14 days since the alleged contravention?

Coupon-mad

Oops not POPLA, it'll be the useless IAS kangaroo court but let's give it a whirl. Doesn't matter if it works or not.

You will NEVER have to pay this invoice because you cannot have agreed to a parking contract in 8 seconds and it's not a no-stopping zone, as that would need double red lines.

Yes you must appeal to PCM first, but bin your version and never start any communication with the awful words 'to whom it may concern'!

Over the weekend, if you have not yet seen and read the CMA's Open Letter and consumer protection compliance warning to the parking industry 2 weeks ago, we suggest you go read it now. Google it.

Then you will understand why I said what I said to you on page 1.

Your appeal should be tearing them a new one for predatory ticketing in eight seconds and threatening to show your evidence to the CMA if PCM don't drop it.

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82096006#Comment_82096006

Thank you, I'm going to submit this

I am appealing your Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (hereafter referred to as PCM). As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am disputing the PCN for the reasons below and will not state who the driver was, nor am I obligated to. I will not hesitate to escalate this to my local Member of Parliament if I receive an unsatisfactory response refusing to cancel the PCN.

As you will be aware, PCM is a member of the trade association International Parking Community (IPC). PCM should be complying with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (hereafter referred to as Industry Code). The IPC requires their members to follow this Industry Code but PCM has not, and has ultimately broken consumer and contract law. 

PCM has acted against IPC’s Industry Code. Clause 3.1.1 of the Industry Code states “An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited.” Your own evidence shows an entry sign that only states stopping is not permitted. There was not a “no entry” sign meaning entrance is allowed. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. There was no entry sign stating parking is prohibited or that drivers are subject to terms and conditions of parking, so how would the driver know there are terms and conditions to parking? PCM has evidenced that the driver was present for just eight seconds and therefore, by issuing a PCN, PCM has unfairly initiated the contract by not giving the driver adequate opportunity to even identify signage that states there are terms and conditions. Even if signage was identified - which it was not, given how the car is shown to be nowhere near any terms and conditions signage - eight seconds is obviously not enough time to read and consider all the terms and conditions and consequences of parking on private land, Please explain how a driver is meant to understand within eight seconds that terms and conditions apply to being on the land and read them despite there being no entry signs stating that terms and conditions apply.

Commentary on Clause five of the Industry Code states “As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land.” The driver did not have a long enough opportunity to realise terms and conditions apply. This makes PCM’s issuing of this PCN after not providing indication when entering that terms and conditions apply or a consideration period for the driver to identify and read signage before making the contract between the driver and PCM against contract law. 

An open letter to private parking operators from the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) (written by Hayley Fletcher, Senior Director - Consumer) dated 16th July 2026 states the Industry Code’s clause 5 and Annex B reflect “the need to protect consumers' legitimate interests and expectations by ensuring they have a reasonable opportunity to make an informed choice before becoming bound by the terms.” No entry signage indicating there are terms and conditions to abide by means the driver could not make an informed choice, so PCM is additionally breaking consumer law. 

Moreover, PCM did not make the use of camera surveillance by patrols overtly clear. There was no signage to indicate that camera surveillance was in use. It should be noted that this is contrary to article 13 of GDPR legislation no privacy information was provided to myself or the passenger, the data subjects, at the time of collection. Note 3 under Clause 3.1.3 states “In meeting obligations to display signs informing drivers of the use of camera surveillance equipment and associated information about their data privacy rights under the GDPR, operators should avoid overcomplicating signs with text that crowds out space for display of the key terms and conditions for staying” but there was no signage alerting drivers of this at all. Your physical patrol was covert and not wearing uniform, penalising drivers within seconds of entering.

The Keeper at Date of Event Contract (KADOE) with the DVLA requires private parking companies to comply with its accredited trade association code of practice. Clause A7.1 of the Agreement between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Customer enforced when PCM requests KADOE states “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice.” PCM is a member of the IPC and you have clearly failed to abide by their Code of Practice by breaching the above clauses and laws. As a result, you have obtained my data from the DVLA fraudulently by denying the driver sufficient time to read the signage depicting the terms and conditions. I will be making a complaint to the DVLA about your conduct.

Issuing a PCN without following the clauses, commentary, contract law, and consumer law, having unclear signage, and using covert surveillance is predatory. This means PCM has not only broken these IPC rules and the law by not giving a consideration period, but has also committed Level 4 non-conformance as stated under Annex H (page 53) in the Industry Code. It is unbelievably unprofessional that PCM has acted in this way and the CMA has warned you about doing so in their open letter to private parking operators just days before the issue of the PCN. You have not listened to the PCM at all and your conduct continues to catch out innocent drivers just to make money rather than acting honestly and lawfully.

In sum, PCM has broken IPC Industry Code, contract law, and consumer law. Issuing this PCN is admitting to breaking these contracts and laws. As a result, this PCN has no merit and must be cancelled if PCM wants to avoid continuing to break the law. If it is not cancelled, I will also contact the CMA.

Coupon-mad

Too long. I would remove all this:

"The Keeper at Date of Event Contract (KADOE) with the DVLA requires private parking companies to comply with its accredited trade association code of practice. Clause A7.1 of the Agreement between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Customer enforced when PCM requests KADOE states “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice.” PCM is a member of the IPC and you have clearly failed to abide by their Code of Practice by breaching the above clauses and laws. As a result, you have obtained my data from the DVLA fraudulently by denying the driver sufficient time to read the signage depicting the terms and conditions. I will be making a complaint to the DVLA about your conduct.

Issuing a PCN without following the clauses, commentary, contract law, and consumer law, having unclear signage, and using covert surveillance is predatory. This means PCM has not only broken these IPC rules and the law by not giving a consideration period, but has alsocommitted Level 4 non-conformance as stated under Annex H (page 53) in the Industry Code. It is unbelievably unprofessional that PCM has acted in this way and the CMA has warned you about doing so in their open letter to private parking operators just days before the issue of the PCN. You have not listened to the PCM at all and your conduct continues to catch out innocent drivers just to make money rather than acting honestly and lawfully.

In sum, PCM has broken IPC Industry Code, contract law, and consumer law. Issuing this PCN is admitting to breaking these contracts and laws."

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82096766#Comment_82096766

Great thank you for your help, I'll submit tomorrow and update when they reply

eternalsunshinee

Hello @Coupon-mad I received this, the PCN wasn't for dropping/collecting but parking. I feel that I could argue the no stopping sign and the double yellows were mixed messaging. Additionally I didn't stop at a kerb but in front of the yellow box. I hard to "park" to identify T&Cs as they were not made clear at all. Would it be possible to reply with a rebuttal or would I have to appeal/contact elsewhere? Could the CMA do anything?

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I have considered your
case carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds;
The vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of the private land
on which it was photographed. These terms and conditions are clearly stipulated throughout the area and upon
review, the operator is confident that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was correctly issued, in line with these
signs.
On this occasion, the vehicle was parked in a restricted area.
The advertised terms make it clear that vehicles are not permitted to stop on the roadway. This is clearly
signposted at the entrance to the road with large entrance signs and road markings that state “NO DROP &
COLLECTION / PRIVATE ROAD”. Motorists should refer to the signage for information on where parking is
permissible and park accordingly.
While I appreciate that you were dropping/collecting a passenger, this does not negate the terms and
conditions in place. As above, there is to be no stopping on the roadway. Had you parked wholly within the
confines of one of the bays on the right hand side of the road, you would have been afforded 20 minutes to
park and drop/collect your passenger.
In light of the above and upon review of your case, I am confident that this charge was correctly issued.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Coupon-mad

EIGHT SECONDS STOPPED and yet they reject the appeal.

PCM (and the other covert CCTV instant ticketers) undoubtedly need investigating by the CMA and ICO as a multi-agency consumer protection case.

Absolute scammery and I specifically warned the MHCLG about this.

I pointed out that the planned Code is flawed in a few ways, and one biggie is that there must not be any scope for zero consideration periods.

By saying that a 'zero consideration period' is allowed at short stay bays and/or land where parking is prohibited, the Government is copying a scam clause from the self-serving industry 'Code'.

It will simply invite PPCs to set up entrapment areas in corners and kerbs on all sites. We'll see this instant unfair and covert CCTV surveillance - with immediate 'fines' sent later by post to keepers - pop up everywhere (in addition to ANPR at entrances): retail parks, supermarkets, people's home estates, GP surgeries, hospitals, the lot.

Immediate ticketing (sent later by post) is worse than wheelclamping due to the potential effect on credit rating and due to illegal (excessive, purely for profit) surveillance and no contract agreed.

PCM used to be '8 second wheelclampers … nothing has changed except various governments have been duped into giving these thugs more powers.

• Keeper liability in 2012 because the DFT took the BPA's word as gospel even though the BPA isn't impartial, knew that their flagship richest & most policy-influential member (ParkingEye) were setting up a litigation team ready to attack keepers … and the BPA also (too late, after getting what they wanted) admitted lying & misleading the DFT about court claim numbers by 90,000;
• extension to POFA on Boxing Day 2025, again in favour of the parking industry to let them sue more consumers, despite the detrimental effect of Schedule 4 having NEVER been reviewed;
• and now the Government is handing the industry the ability to add a paragraph in bold or a misleading tagline on their intimidating letters to say (effectively) "we are now regulated by the UK Government so pay up".

eternalsunshinee

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82101877#Comment_82101877

@Coupon-mad yes I am really unhappy about this. What do you suggest I do next? I really don't want to deal with this ending up in a SCC. Eight seconds being considered as parking is ridiculous. I didn't "park" on the double yellows or the box and without T&Cs on entry, how should I know where I can or can't "park"…?

Coupon-mad

May as well try the IAS for a laugh.

It is by all bizarre accounts, a kangaroo court but clearly 8 seconds is not sufficient time to even see some words on a poorly placed faded sign over on a different kerb, let alone read and 'agree' to a parking contract.

Your IAS appeal should be tearing them a new one for predatory ticketing in eight seconds and threatening to show your evidence to the CMA if PCM don't drop it, and if the IAS uphold it then you'll show the joke 'decision' to the CMA too.

Quote what the CMA said about consideration periods.