NCP Parking Charge - Reserved Parking Bay

radddogg · 20 April 2018 at 12:29PM

Hi,

The keeper of a vehicle I has received a parking charge notice from NCP.

The driver parked at Lancaster station. Car park was pretty full, driver reversed into the bay as the spaces were too small to swing in forwards. Driver returned to car after paying for the ticket and found a ticket on the windscreen. As driver reversed they hadn't seen a 'Reserved Parking' sign because it was above the roof height.

The sign simply said "Traveller, Reserved Parking, Virgin Trains" with no mention of restrictions or fines. Driver was also travelling with Virgin trains that day so technically did nothing wrong, right?!

I've read the newbie section and believe I should appeal online using the standard template but wondering whether I should add anything to the appeal regarding this point?

Cheers

Quentin · 20 April 2018 at 12:33PM

Send it as is.

KeithP · 20 April 2018 at 12:41PM

And one of the very good reasons why you should follow Quentin's advice is that it is too easy for an appellant to give away the driver's identity - just like you have already done in your opening post.

You need to edit your post to correct that.

There is no place for the word 'I' when describing events on the day, so I suggest your fourth sentence should start something like:

As the driver reversed he hadn't seen...

Review and adjust the rest of your post similarly.

radddogg · 20 April 2018 at 3:52PM

Hi, I referred to the driver as I because I'm not responding to ncp here. On the form the owner will refer to the driver as the driver.

I'm asking if the owner should add anything to the standard template about the driver's interpretation of the signage.

nosferatu1001 · 20 April 2018 at 4:03PM

Yeah, but you realise anyone such as NCp can read this forum?
It's fairly bloody obvious, given its public.

KeithP · 20 April 2018 at 4:12PM

There is no issue at the moment, but presumably in the future you will probably be posting here a second level appeal to PoPLA.

Just before Christmas a poster send me a PM showing how he had lost a PoPLA appeal simply because the PPC was able to prove to PoPLA that the appellant was the driver. They did that by using screen shots of his posts here. A PCN number carelessly left in one of the images he had linked to, together with text in one of his posts, was enough to link the poster to a particular parking incident as the driver.

In is proven that the parking companies trawl forums like this just waiting for people to trip themselves up.

Of course, you are entirely free to ignore any of the guidance you are offered here. It's free and there is no obligation.

Your choice.

Edited to add:
And since you mention it, it is probably best to refer to the keeper as the keeper.
Particularly with station car parks, the term owner should not be used.
At the moment, the only thing the parking company knows about you is that you are the registered keeper. Best to keep it that way, but again, your choice.

radddogg · 20 April 2018 at 5:17PM

Post edited thanks for clarifications

The_Deep · 20 April 2018 at 6:16PM

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

radddogg · 26 April 2018 at 11:03AM

Hi,

is the below ok or should I remove the last sentence?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number: xxxxx

I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN an absolute disgrace and pure intimidation.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

1. Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.
2. Please provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

I will use POPLA (if offered) not the 'IAS' which has been exposed in Parliament as compromised by a conflict of interests with the IPC. The BPA were also heavily criticised and both appeals systems were condemned - hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted in recent years to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog). Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18).

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

In addition, the keeper was travelling with Virgin Trains and was parked in a bay reserved for Virgin Trains travellers.

Yours faithfully,

KeithP · 26 April 2018 at 12:15PM

So you are still intent on throwing away your 'no keeper liability' defence?

If you want to keep the last sentence, then I would strongly suggest that it should read:

In addition, the driver was travelling with Virgin Trains and was parked in a bay reserved for Virgin Trains travellers.

It is for exactly this reason that the suggestion is often made here to send the template appeal as it is, without change.

Umkomaas · 26 April 2018 at 12:16PM

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

1. [STRIKE]Please provide[/STRIKE] dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.
2. [STRIKE]Please provide[/STRIKE] all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

No need for the 'Please provide' - your opening sentence states that they are a 'requirement'.

I will use POPLA (if offered) not the 'IAS' which has been exposed in Parliament as compromised by a conflict of interests with the IPC. The BPA were also heavily criticised and both appeals systems were condemned - hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted in recent years to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog). Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18).

I know this was written by CM, but I'd leave it out as, in my opinion, it adds nothing to your appeal and will have no influence (one way or the other) to the appeal's outcome.

In its place I would say 'Should you reject this appeal, I require a POPLA Code, where my further appeal to them will be successful'.

(Sorry, CM

)

NCP Parking Charge - Reserved Parking Bay

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free