PCN @ High Point Village - Hayes & Harlington, London

Thank you Coupon-mad, will ammend those.


Regards,

Casper

Hello Coupon-mad,


those rat !!!!!!!s uploaded their Prima Facie Case at the IAS portal...


Shall I share their notes... ?

Below is the response from PCM to my IAS appeal:





PCM has been contracted to monitor & enforce a parking enforcement scheme in this area
since 10th November 2009. This site is private land and is managed and operated by Parking Control Management.
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued in accordance with this parking management scheme. The signage in the area is clear
and informs motorists of the termsagreed to by parking. By parking in this manner, the driver agrees to pay the charge stated.
On the 24/04/2017 VRM was observed to be parked in breach of the advertised terms and conditions.

Parking Attendant recorded that the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.
The Parking Charge Notice was issued via post on the
Currently, the station is being developed as part of the London Cross rail upgrades; therefore the roadway is closed to station
traffic with no drop off facilities available. This is signposted at the entrance to the roadway (see site information below).
Limited parking is available within the bays but stopping/ waiting or drop & collection outside of marked bays is not permitted at any time.

In answer to the points of appeal;
1.
The appellant claims no parking occurred. The Oxford English Dictionary defines !!!8220;to park!!!8221; as !!!8220;to bring (a vehicle that
one is driving) to a halt and leave it temporarily!!!8221;. The vehicle was brought to a halt and left in the position for a period of
time, therefore parked. Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the legislation which governs the issue of parking charges) does
not define what is meant by !!!8220;parked!!!8221;. There is however, an implied definition,
whereby a charge may only be issued to a vehicle that is !!!8220;stationary!!!8221; (please refer to subset 4b)
!!!8211; which can be defined as !!!8220;not moving!!!8221;. The vehicle was photographed to be !!!8216;not moving!!!8217;
!!!8211; it remains in the same position over a period of time. This constitutes parking and as
such the charge was issued, in accordance with the signage on site.
Further to this, the signage itself (that which forms the basis of the contract) defines what is meant by parking in the
context of the terms where it clarifies !!!8220;this includes stopping, waiting & drop & collection!!!8221;

2.
The national Rail website is not under control of the operator nor do we work for national rail. A drop off area has not
been provided since the start of the Crossrail upgrades.

3.
I appreciate that the appellant was collecting his pregnant wife. Parking is acceptable on this site within the marked
parking bays (all of which were available on the day in question)

4.
There are clear signs at the entrance to the roadway stating that parking conditions apply and advising that the roadway
is private, Parking is permitted within the confines of the bay for a period of 20 minutes. It is a common, simple, and
clear term that, when parking in a private car park, vehicles should park within bays and the driver was given clear
notice of it. The driver was given the opportunity to park for free and chose not to.

5.
This point is not relevant.

6.
As previously advised the turning circle & drop off point has been closed for three years.

7.
The vehicle appears to have stopped in the access road in order to drop/ collect a passenger. It was stationary whilst passenger entered/exited the vehicle.
If the vehicle had been merely performing a manoeuvre or in a line of traffic, the vehicle would not have been photographed. Signage in the area is clear
!!!8211; stopping and waiting or drop & collection is not permitted outside of marked bays. The vehicle was parked; therefore the driver agreed to pay the charge.

8.
A patrol Officer observed and photograhed the vehicle. A postal charge was then issued.

9.
Under the KADOE system, the operator may seek keeper details with a !!!8220;reasonable cause!!!8221;. The operator maintains
that this !!!8216;reasonable cause!!!8217; was satisfied under Reason Code 00CH !!!8211; the vehicle breaches the terms and conditions of
the signage of a private car park.

10.
Any driver is of course, entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms. It is agreed that the signs cannot
be read from the vehicle, nor are they intended to be. The driver is entitled to park and consider the terms before
making the decision to park. The operator would expect any driver parking on private land, to park in bays where they
are present. However, the driver made no attempt to do this. The signs at the entrance make it clear this is private land
and restrictions apply & as does the large wording painted on the roadway. The photographs make it clear the
driver made no attempt to consider the terms; therefore they are deemed to have notice of them.

11.
The operator is fully contracted to enforce parking controls at the location. It will be noted that the charge arises out of a
relationship in contract and that we are the principal (not an agent) in the contract. This site has been audited by the
IPC a nd a copy of the landowner!!!8217;s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. However, whilst we
maintain that we do, in fact, have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the
contract); the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control
Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand,
this is not provided as evidence in this appeal.

PIC1: drive.google.com/open?id=1BITPQ8dlHWthRlrLBdMXToXyXh03qOZM
PIC2: drive.google.com/open?id=1772jyvDaNGbPqr2IZzrolaZQ-bemUkCG


Thanks