London Parking Solutions (PCN Parking solutions - Hove/paymypcn.net)

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 07/07/2017 09:59:16.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 07/05/2017.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

THE LAND IN QUESTION IS PRIVATE AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING.

BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGNAGE, WHICH IS DISPLAYED AT THE SITE, MOTORISTS ARE MADE AWARE THAT SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO PARK AT THE SITE, THEN A VALID PARKING PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES.

IN THE EVENT THAT A PERMIT IS NOT CLEARLY DISPLAYED, THEN THE MOTORIST BY WAY OF AFFIRMATION, HAS AGREED TO PAY THE OPERATOR A FIXED AGREED UPON SUM OF MONEY. IN ESSENCE THIS SUM IS A CORE CONTRACTUAL PRICE TERM.

SHOULD THE MOTORIST NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING, THEN THEY ARE FREE TO REMOVE THEIR VEHICLE FROM THE SITE AND TO PARK AT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION.

AS PER THE OPERATORS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PARKING PERMIT AT THE TIME OF THE UNAUTHORISED PARKING EVENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE VEHICLE IS PARKED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE OPERATOR’S SIGNAGE ADVISING OF THE REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY A VALID PERMIT.

AS THE APPELLANT WAS THE HIRER OF THE MATERIAL VEHICLE, A FULLY COMPLIANT NOTICE TO HIRER WAS SENT AFTER THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE HIRE COMPANY AS KEEPER AND THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AN APPEAL BASED ON RECEIPT OF THIS DOCUMENT, THIS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE OPERATOR’S EVIDENCE. THE ISSUING AGENT OBSERVED THE VEHICLE TEN MINUTES BEFORE ISSUANCE AND AS THE VEHICLE’S OCCUPANTS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A VALID PERMIT TO PARK HERE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE IMAGE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE LACK OF A PERMIT EVEN FROM THE FAR DISTANCE IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A COPY RETROSPECTIVELY WHICH FURTHER CONFIRMS THEY WERE NOT A PERMIT HOLDER AND WERE CORRECTLY ISSUED THIS NOTICE. ANY ASPECTS OF THE APPEAL REGARDING THE OPERATOR’S EMPLOYEE: THE ISSUING AGENT, THEIR ACTIVITY WHILST ON SITE OR THE RELAY OF THE TERMS APPLIED HERE IS FULLY REFUTED AS THE OPERATOR IS A LONG STANDING MEMBER OF THE IPC’S APPROVED OPERATOR SCHEME AND AS A RESULT ALL ASPECTS OF ENFORCEMENT ON THIS SITE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THEM PRIOR TO ENFORCEMENT TAKING PLACE.

FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.

The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017 - but no 'Notice to Hirer' was posted, and none of the statutory enclosures defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA were ever served, nor shown in evidence.