Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • situation-observer
    • By situation-observer 10th Apr 18, 3:12 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 7Thanks
    situation-observer
    Total Parking Solutions "left site" PCN
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 18, 3:12 PM
    Total Parking Solutions "left site" PCN 10th Apr 18 at 3:12 PM
    Hello all,

    My father has received a windscreen PCN from Total Parking Solutions, as the driver of his car was apparently seen 'leaving the site' at a retail car park. He has a receipt from the driver of the car showing that, just after the PCN was issued, they paid for something from the shop which the car park serves. On the online appeals system, there are no images showing any driver, let alone a driver leaving the site - only pictures of the car showing that and where it is parked.

    He sent them a letter asking for their evidence that the driver left the site, mentioning that "the driver" had shopped in an adjacent store (unfortunately giving away the gender as 'he'). He signed it off as the registered keeper, though giving only his initialised first names. They responded quickly and asked for a copy of "the receipts" (it was a very short and unclear letter). They don't seem to be treating it as a normal appeal really, but their response is the first letter he's received as "the keeper".

    If this was me I would have handled this very differently of course, but unfortunately I've only just found out about it. I've been at the site before and happened to have taken a photo when I was there (!). The PCN amount is hidden in the smallest print among all the writing on the signage, and isn't in opposing or other clear colours like it was in the Beavis case. Not leaving the site is indeed on the sign, but "the site" is undefined. Also the signage is very high up and so difficult to read. No advertising or planning permission/consent, as usual.

    My question is - I've advised him to try and use all these things to his advantage, but he's very unwilling to argue it on "technicalities" (like potential POFA non-compliance by them sending an initial letter to the keeper which is too soon and not worded to be a NTK). He lost an unrelated small claims court case many years ago and so is afraid of it going that far and will pay if his initial appeals aren't successful. He only wants to use only "fair" arguments and doesn't want to lose the chance to pay at the discounted rate !

    Given all this - what is a possible best approach? Is them sending the "NTK" too soon and with non-compliant text a winning defence - or would the small lettering of the charge be a winning point? I can't imagine that they would issue a PCN with no evidence whatsoever of the contravention claimed, so I think they must have a picture of the driver leaving site, if so, and just not have uploaded it to the appeals site.

    Thanks!
Page 1
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 10th Apr 18, 5:47 PM
    • 3,228 Posts
    • 4,988 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 5:47 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 18, 5:47 PM
    Does he realise this is a scam charge by Muppets that have devised this cunning rubbish to extract money from people.

    Have you read the newbies thread on here?

    One PPC tried this scam years ago and took it to court, the obnoxious owner of said firm was advised by the judge he might need to bring his toothbrush to court!

    If leaving site was so detrimental to the profitability of the site why does the supposed parking management firm allow it to happen and send invoices after the event?

    Answer, it's a con, that is highly unlikely to see court let alone win!

    No one on here would pay these scamming muppets a penny!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Apr 18, 5:58 PM
    • 10,238 Posts
    • 10,131 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 18, 5:58 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 18, 5:58 PM
    Since Ibbotson

    http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/VCS%20v%20Ibottson.pdf

    "leaving site" PCNs are almost impossible for a PPC to win in court. Most will not even go there.

    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.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 10th Apr 18, 7:42 PM
    • 4,295 Posts
    • 6,097 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:42 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:42 PM
    The so called Discounted rate is a con trick to pressure people into paying up before they relaise what they have got.

    Whos car park was it? who owns the retail park?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 18, 1:24 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 1:24 AM
    • #5
    • 11th Apr 18, 1:24 AM
    Hello all,

    My father has received a windscreen PCN from Total Parking Solutions, as the driver of his car was apparently seen 'leaving the site' at a retail car park. He has a receipt from the driver of the car showing that, just after the PCN was issued, they paid for something from the shop which the car park serves. On the online appeals system, there are no images showing any driver, let alone a driver leaving the site - only pictures of the car showing that and where it is parked.

    He sent them a letter asking for their evidence that the driver left the site, mentioning that "the driver" had shopped in an adjacent store (unfortunately giving away the gender as 'he'). He signed it off as the registered keeper, though giving only his initialised first names. They responded quickly and asked for a copy of "the receipts" (it was a very short and unclear letter). They don't seem to be treating it as a normal appeal really, but their response is the first letter he's received as "the keeper".

    If this was me I would have handled this very differently of course, but unfortunately I've only just found out about it. I've been at the site before and happened to have taken a photo when I was there (!). The PCN amount is hidden in the smallest print among all the writing on the signage, and isn't in opposing or other clear colours like it was in the Beavis case. Not leaving the site is indeed on the sign, but "the site" is undefined. Also the signage is very high up and so difficult to read. No advertising or planning permission/consent, as usual.

    My question is - I've advised him to try and use all these things to his advantage, but he's very unwilling to argue it on "technicalities" (like potential POFA non-compliance by them sending an initial letter to the keeper which is too soon and not worded to be a NTK). He lost an unrelated small claims court case many years ago and so is afraid of it going that far and will pay if his initial appeals aren't successful. He only wants to use only "fair" arguments and doesn't want to lose the chance to pay at the discounted rate !

    Given all this - what is a possible best approach? Is them sending the "NTK" too soon and with non-compliant text a winning defence - or would the small lettering of the charge be a winning point? I can't imagine that they would issue a PCN with no evidence whatsoever of the contravention claimed, so I think they must have a picture of the driver leaving site, if so, and just not have uploaded it to the appeals site.
    Originally posted by situation-observer
    Another one, situation observer?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,036Posts Today

9,022Users online

Martin's Twitter