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
    • Torslanda
    • By Torslanda 12th Aug 18, 2:12 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Torslanda
    NW Parking Management - Not parking within marked within markings
    • #1
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:12 PM
    NW Parking Management - Not parking within marked within markings 12th Aug 18 at 2:12 PM
    Hi all,

    Newbie here, but I have read the newbies post and have a good idea what to do, but I have a few specific questions I'm hoping some of you might be able to help with, so I hope it's OK to start this thread.
    [Sorry, as a new user I can't post full links]

    The background is that my car was parked in Carlisle on a private car park and I have received a NTK for the alleged infraction of "not being parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space". I can't find too many examples of this on the forums here. Please see below images of the NTK and their photographs of my car. I have heavily redacted and anonymised these as I know that the PPCs monitor these forums. However, as you'll see, the only wheel that is over the white line is no more than about 4cm over. Furthermore, this was an end space and no vehicle could have parked on that side of my vehicle. In fact, if anything, this could only have maximised vehicular access for the vehicle next to my car. Please also see Google Street Maps image below of the car park and the space in question. The space was the one occupied by the grey Audi in that photograph, and as my vehicle had been reversed in, the wheel which was over the line was in the position of the Audi's front near side wheel in that photo.

    Google Street Map image of car park and space: postimg.cc/image/espg3stwb/
    PCN page 1: postimg.cc/image/tnwf109vv/
    PCN page 2: postimg.cc/image/828yudegb/
    PCN photos of car: postimg.cc/image/5k5nci1mz/
    Car park signs 1: postimg.cc/image/r8m5xo59n/
    Car park signs 2: postimg.cc/image/glscs9k9n/
    Car park signs 3: postimg.cc/image/718q5dfi3/
    Car park signs 4: postimg.cc/image/718q5dfi3/

    My contention is therefore that a 4cm overhang was not reasonable grounds to invoke a condition requiring the driver to "park correctly within the markings" and that it was issued by an overzealous parking attendant motivated more by profiteering than proper management of the car park, who did not apply the discretion that a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. In short, it was unreasonable, and my defence is one of de minimis (padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360006354853-De-Minimis).

    During my research I also found this Guardian article (theguardian.com/money/2013/apr/18/how-challenge-parking-ticket) which states:

    Check that any Notice to the Registered Keeper was sent out more than 28 days after the parking ticket was issued. If it was sent earlier then the parking company cannot sue the registered keeper for any alleged parking charges. If the parking company requested that the DVLA provide the name and address of the registered keeper earlier than 28 days after issuing a ticket, it cannot sue the registered keeper. It also may be a breach of the Data Protection Act, for which the DVLA may be liable.
    In my case, they do not know who the driver was, and the NTK was sent 3 days after the alleged transgression.

    I'm also intending to hit them with a GDPR Subject Access Request.

    I'm currently preparing the initial 'appeal' but in the meantime would be grateful for any advice on the following:


    1. How winnable is this?
    2. What do the Guardian mean by "NTK must be after 28 days"? Mine was well within this. What statute or case law are they referring to and how do I use this in my defence?
    3. When should I issue the GDPR SAR? At the same time as the initial appeal (i.e. go nuclear and hit them with everything at once to let them know this is going to be difficult)? Or after they have rejected my initial appeal (by which time they are likely to be out of time to comply with Article 14 anyway)?
    4. Do you think my SAR could be considered "manifestly unfounded or excessive" and that they could ignore it on those grounds? Should I tone it down a bit?


    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Last edited by Torslanda; 19-09-2018 at 7:40 PM.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    • 11,195 Posts
    • 11,760 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

    Have you sent an initial appeal to the PPC?

    Was there a windscreen Notice to Driver?
    .
    • Torslanda
    • By Torslanda 12th Aug 18, 2:20 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Torslanda
    • #3
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:20 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:20 PM
    Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?
    Yes.

    Have you sent an initial appeal to the PPC?
    Not yet. I came here first. :-) But I am preparing it.

    Was there a windscreen Notice to Driver
    No.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Aug 18, 2:23 PM
    • 37,976 Posts
    • 22,087 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #4
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:23 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:23 PM
    There is no preparation required for the initial appeal.

    Copy the template!
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Aug 18, 2:23 PM
    • 2,387 Posts
    • 2,916 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #5
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:23 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:23 PM
    hard to see how an ANPR camera was able to see the car parked over a line

    "the NTK was sent 3 days after the alleged transgression. "


    was a ticket placed on the car?
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    • 11,195 Posts
    • 11,760 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #6
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    As there was no windscreen ticket, that 28 days mentioned by the Guardian is not relevant.
    In your case they have to get the NtK to the Keeper within fourteen days of the incident and have done so.

    Just send the blue text template appeal to the PPC.

    Send it as it is.
    Send it as the keeper.

    That's all there is to it at this stage.
    Last edited by KeithP; 12-08-2018 at 2:29 PM.
    .
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    • 2,387 Posts
    • 2,916 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #7
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    Yes.

    Not yet. I came here first. :-) But I am preparing it.


    was there a windscreen ticket
    No.
    Originally posted by Torslanda

    so , how did an automated camera spot the incident

    ANPR camera photos being shown in court would result in a laugh
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Torslanda
    • By Torslanda 12th Aug 18, 2:33 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Torslanda
    • #8
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:33 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:33 PM
    Thanks Quentin. Shall I include the aggressive part:


    Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).
    ... or is that likely to just annoy them and make them dig their heels in?


    Also:


    I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner,
    ... I don't know who the landowner is. It was just a car park (not a store, retail park, hospital etc. car park).
    • Torslanda
    • By Torslanda 12th Aug 18, 2:35 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Torslanda
    • #9
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:35 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Aug 18, 2:35 PM
    Thanks twhitehousecat,


    I'm sure it wasn't an ANPR as I have been back since and looked around the car park. There are no cameras. I believe it was an 'on foot' attendant snooping around checking tickets and taking photographs of anything he/she thought could make them some extra money.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Aug 18, 2:37 PM
    • 2,387 Posts
    • 2,916 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    Thanks Quentin. Shall I include the aggressive part:



    ... or is that likely to just annoy them and make them dig their heels in?


    Also:



    ... I don't know who the landowner is. It was just a car park (not a store, retail park, hospital etc. car park).
    Originally posted by Torslanda


    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74649885&postcount=6
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • B789
    • By B789 12th Aug 18, 2:39 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 55 Thanks
    B789
    Gosh... I love reading these forums but it never amazes me to observe human nature and the inability to process information properly...

    Just send the blue text template appeal to the PPC.

    Send it as it is.
    Send it as the keeper.

    That's all there is to it at this stage.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thanks Quentin. Shall I include the aggressive part:

    ... or is that likely to just annoy them and make them dig their heels in?
    Originally posted by Torslanda
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Aug 18, 2:44 PM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 85,338 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    The article from the Grainiad is utterly wrong. It gives incorrect information of the worst kind, and unfortunately people will believe it, follow it, and drop themselves in it as a result
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Aug 18, 2:47 PM
    • 2,387 Posts
    • 2,916 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    please note , BPA conditions (code of practice) state that in the case of an ANPR type of ticket , photos should be enclosed with the NTK , in most cases those would be timed ones showing entry/exit times

    however in the case of NW parking management , dispensation has been allowed and he has licenced 42 drones
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Aug 18, 2:49 PM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 85,338 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Google Street Map image of car park and space: https://postimg.cc/image/espg3stwb/
    PCN page 1: https://postimg.cc/image/tnwf109vv/
    PCN page 2: https://postimg.cc/image/828yudegb/
    PCN photos of car: https://postimg.cc/image/5k5nci1mz/
    Car park signs 1: https://postimg.cc/image/r8m5xo59n/
    Car park signs 2: https://postimg.cc/image/glscs9k9n/
    Car park signs 3: https://postimg.cc/image/718q5dfi3/
    Car park signs 4: https://postimg.cc/image/718q5dfi3/

    Inadequate signage will be one of the winning points. The 100 charge is in tiny font.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 12-08-2018 at 2:51 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 12th Aug 18, 2:57 PM
    • 2,387 Posts
    • 2,916 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    https://postimg.cc/image/718q5dfi3/

    we collect your data by CCTV / ANPR cameras or attendant on site

    in this case it is clear that the data was collected by "attendant on site" so a ticket should have been placed on the car and data collected from the DVLA after 29 days
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Aug 18, 3:03 PM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 85,338 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    PCN 1 and 2: -

    No mention of the POFA at all.

    Uses a prohibited premium rate 'phone number. Minor but should still be mentioned.

    The name of the creditor changes part way through from Northwest Parking to Northwest Park.

    Using the word "should" in conjunction with "supply the name and address of the driver" is misleading. The PoFA 2012 makes no such statement. Complain to the BPA and DVLA.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 12-08-2018 at 3:07 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Aug 18, 3:58 PM
    • 20,513 Posts
    • 32,424 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    https://postimg.cc/image/718q5dfi3/

    we collect your data by CCTV / ANPR cameras or attendant on site

    in this case it is clear that the data was collected by "attendant on site" so a ticket should have been placed on the car and data collected from the DVLA after 29 days
    Originally posted by twhitehousescat
    Dispensation from the DVLA that hand-held camera shots can be the equivalent of ANPR camera capture, with NtK following within 14 days. Helps with the cash flow!

    No windscreen ticket required, plenty of them at it, Mrs Sunglasses at Heath Parade really milked the opportunity provided by the DVLA's 'blind eye'!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Torslanda
    • By Torslanda 22nd Oct 18, 6:42 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Torslanda
    POPLA win!
    Just had a POPLA win on this one, by virtue of the fact that Northwest Parking Management capitulated. The POPLA email came back as follows:

    Northwest Parking Management Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.
    Many thanks to those here who helped me. I threw everything at the POPLA appeal and it paid off. My (redacted) POPLA appeal can be found below in case anyone else wishes to use it as a foundation for their own appeal under similar circumstances. In short, the grounds for appeal were:

    1. The triviality of the 'offence' (de minimis defence) / profiteering on the part of the operator
    2. No evidence of contractual authority
    3. No evidence of eligibility to recover under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
    4. Failure to provide evidence of the period of parking as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
    5. No proof of the enforceability of the Parking Charge
    6. Inadequate signage / breach of BPA Code of Conduct

    [Sorry, not allowed to post links due to being a new user]
    dropbox[dot]com/s/aqrtcyk8n0y9xp0/POPLA%20Appeal%20-%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 22nd Oct 18, 10:09 PM
    • 3,385 Posts
    • 2,353 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Here is your link made live: -
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/aqrtcyk8n0y9xp0/POPLA%20Appeal%20-%20REDACTED.pdf?dl=0
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

232Posts Today

1,218Users online

Martin's Twitter