Need help with PCM

https://m.imgur.com/a/me7erg1

I have read the newbie help and I think Im just too dumb to really understand.

Can you get someone who isn’t too dumb to sit with you and help you to read the information?

What should I do? Just ignore it?

Definitely not, unless you fancy a day in court.

Avacynia wrote: »

Added the form itself to that link, is it worth fighting?

That is entirely your decision. Personally, I'd fight it, as would the regulars of this forum, but we're all up to date with legal and technical issues to beat a PPC in court.

Coupon-mad has put months and months of work into distilling that knowledge and incorporating it into the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, which gives anyone wishing to fight private parking charges 24/7 access to the best information anywhere on the internet. Have you read it yet?

Having looked at the Notice to Keeper you've just added to your link, I can straightaway see that it is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) in order to hold the registered keeper (RK) liable for the charge. You need to check this out for yourself, and as this will be a key point in any defence should this get to court, you will need to have a thorough grasp of the issues.

So to help you with this, look at the paragraph towards the bottom of the page, the one that starts 'Please be advised', read what that says, then compare it with what it needs to say to transfer liability to the RK by reading para 9 of PoFA (Schedule 4).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Check the rest of the NtK to see if there are any other deficiencies and make a list of them.

That's a starting point for you.

I am struggling to see the point in PoFA p9 that I can use to contest.

I would say PCM NTKs are generally POFA compliant and that people should defend their claims as driver, if they were.

To my layman's eyes, other than the £60 (rising to £100) charge being extortionate for parking in a housing estate I live in, nothing seems out of place.

That's the one thing you can't argue - that the charge is extortionate/not related to any loss. That argument went out with the binding and bl00dy stupid and anti-consumer 'ParkingEye v Beavis' Supreme Court decision in 2015.

What am I missing?

The fact that we see PCM beaten in court 99% of the time because:

(a) In a residential case you have the usual arguments seen in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post, where I give two links to 2 residential defences written by legally qualified posters (bargepole and Johnersh).
(b) Gladstones run the cases without proper evidence
(c) PCM are predatory rogue traders, as exposed by Watchdog:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html

the driver of the vehicle had parked on a road about 400 yards from the house to pop into a friend's house to collect my daughter. Away from the car for maybe 10-15 minutes. Is the grace period something I can use?

Yes, using:

- Jopson v Homeguard, (search this forum for 'Jopson defence', and
- the terms of your lease that surely allow you rights/peaceful enjoyment, and
- you could also cite the opinions of the Lords in the Appeal case of Moncrieff:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/jamie.pdf

34. For the owners, use of their own vehicles would involve walking a distance of about 150 yards, in all weathers and in times of darkness as well as in daylight, over what the sheriff has described as a significantly steep descent or climb in open and exposed country. In the case of a mother with very young children, for example, this would mean leaving them unattended and unsupervised in the house while parking or collecting her vehicle, or alternatively taking her children with her on foot in such conditions to and from the place where she had to park her vehicle. Owners who had no difficulty in driving but found walking difficult because they were disabled or elderly would have to do this too, as the restriction on parking for which the defenders argue applies to everyone.

52. But a vehicle driver who lives at Da Store is not entitled, it is insisted, to leave the vehicle at or around the Da Store gate but, instead, after unloading any goods and/or passengers at the Da Store gate, must drive back to the Sandsound branch road, leave the vehicle there and walk back to Da Store. If he or she is accompanied by small children who cannot be left alone, they must perforce accompany the driver. If that is what the driver has to do, it cannot be said that he is exercising a right of vehicular access.

You must b entitled to 'assisted boarding and alighting' (Council term, strictly speaking, not private land but the meaning is the same) of small children, and that is NOT the same thing as parking. Jopson & Moncrieff help you there.

Your fellow residents should have got together and kicked PCM out ages ago, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5997200

PCM are creating a 'private nuisance' to residents that NONE of you need. No permits!

YOU NEED TO START YOUR OWN THREAD WHEN PCM/GLADSTONES SEND YOU A LBC.