U.K. Parking Patrol Office Ltd - Newcastle Airport |
U.K. Parking Patrol Office Ltd - Newcastle Airport |
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:38
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 21 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,593 |
Hi everyone
I have received the following email with regards to my appeal. The PCN is exactly the same as others that I've seen on these forums. I was wondering if anyone had any advice for me? Thanks to all in advance. Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 30.10.2016 Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons: The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage loading/unloading whilst stationary on double red lines/obstructing the entrance to the car park in an area where there are a large presence of notices stating: “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”. There are signs around the entire airport complex including at the entrance that clearly state the parking restrictions in place. Security at the airport is paramount and any vehicle captured loading/unloading in anywhere other than the official collection/drop off car parks is issued with a notice by the CCTV operator. The charge is not issued under contract law and is not an attempt to recover damages for breaching a contract. The charge is an alternative to prosecution in the Magistrates Court for breaching the byelaws. As a result of the charge being permitted under the byelaws Genuine Pre-estimate of loss is not a consideration which is relevant. The driver breached byelaw 6.3: Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice. The terms and conditions of parking , and all charges, are well advertised from entry to the development, see attached. Therefore by loading/unloading in the restricted area you contravened the airport byelaws and the notice was correctly incurred. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and have a number of options: 1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time you will lose the chance to pay the discounted rate and the full amount of £100 will become payable. 2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case and are unsuccessful, the full amount of £100 will become payable. In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter. Please visit www.theias.org for full details. 3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection. How to Pay: YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY £60 WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE. CHEQUES/POSTAL ORDERS SHOULD BE CROSSED AND MADE PAYABLE TO: The UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd and posted to: Parking Patrol Collections Office 309, Great Northern House 275 Deansgate, Manchester M3 4EL Alternatively you can pay online at www.parking-tickets.co.uk |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:38
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:42
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I do hope you didn't reveal the drivers ID in the appeal?
3/ Is interesting, if the 'penalty' is to avoid prosecution in court, then the only recourse to that can be through the criminal court, not 'debt recovery' (there is no debt you retards, its a penalty you believe is owed) and no civil courts as it implies. Tim for a POPLA appeal. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:42 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:44
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 21 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,593 |
No drivers ID was included in the appeal.
It wasn't me driving the vehicle, but I never mentioned anything of the sort. I received the rejection appeal on Saturday, but I've only just this morning checked my emails having been away all weekend. |
|
|
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:47
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
OK you respond to them stating that
1) this is land covered by byelaws they can not use POFA to hold you, the keeper, liable for the charge. 2) You were not the driver at the time. If you can provide evidence that you were not driving then so much the better. |
|
|
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 09:48
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
Perhaps a letter enclosing a cheque for payment plus a Letter before Claim highlighting the misleading and potentially fraudulent information and the abuse of personal information may be in order.
If they cash the cheque, the grounds for a claim are made. If they fail to cash the cheque and persist in pursuing you, the grounds for a claim are made. |
|
|
Mon, 28 Nov 2016 - 12:42
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
I have followed the antics of UKPPO at Newacastle Airport for a goodly length of time and as yet they don't seem to have chanced court on an airport case. Wonder why?
-------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 09:17
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 21 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,593 |
Thank you very much for all the feedback. Much appreciated.
Do you recommend me sending a letter to them like Ostell has mentioned, or going down POPLA route? UKPPO have noted that one of my options are ias.org, but I don't really trust their 'advice' on the matter. |
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 10:00
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
UKPPO are not BPA members so POPLA is not an option.
The IAS is the IPC's equivalent of POPLA but a shambolic immoral and borderline criminal farce and not to be used. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 10:20
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
The IAS must not be used.
|
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 11:08
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
And as it is not relevant land, ie byelaws, then neither POPLA or IAS should be involved in an appeal.
|
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 11:44
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 21 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,593 |
Ah right, so I shouldn't appeal at all.
I won't bother with IAS or POPLA then, cheers! I should just send them another letter like I done before stating I wasn't the driver at the time and the land is covered by byelaws therefore they can't use Protections of Freedoms Act to hold me liable for charge? How long can this go on for playing tennis? I'm assuming they'll just send me another letter like I posted above with more threatening context? |
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 11:54
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
How long can this go on for playing tennis? 6 years. But you don't play tennis. What is Best at this stage is a single letter stating 1/ You disagree with their rejection 2/ Your reasoning for not paying still stands 3/ That you are happy to undertake Alternative Dispute Resolution with a competent authority meeting the requirements of the regulations (the IAS isn't and doesn't) suggest the Ombudsman service (they will decline). 4/ That you will enter into NO MORE COMMUNICATION with them other than with respect to the ADR. They won't accept ADR and so after that you just file their loo pap....sorry letters. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 14:45
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
How long can this go on for playing tennis? 6 years. But you don't play tennis. What is Best at this stage is a single letter stating 1/ You disagree with their rejection 2/ Your reasoning for not paying still stands 3/ That you are happy to undertake Alternative Dispute Resolution with a competent authority meeting the requirements of the regulations (the IAS isn't and doesn't) suggest the Ombudsman service (they will decline). 4/ That you will enter into NO MORE COMMUNICATION with them other than with respect to the ADR. They won't accept ADR and so after that you just file their loo pap....sorry letters. Actually UKPPO do state that the payment is a penalty under the byelaws. Time out on this would therefore suggest the usual byelaw 6 months. If they push their luck beyond that time they would need to revert to it being a contractual matter, and as they already say it isn't I think they'd be well stuffed. -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 16:24
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You'd think so, but they clearly want to hedge their bets!
3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. Discrepancies 1/ Owed to THEM? Under the byelaw penalty it would be owed to the airport, so maybe they are now converting it to a civil claim. 2/ Debt recovery for a byelaw or is it now civil? 3/ Under the byelaw only the airport can proceed with a criminal court claim so that indicates they think it's civil Put all that in front of a judge (civil or criminal) - I don't see that happening somehow! -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 17:37
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 311 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,371 |
Reading the byelaws, section 3.3.1 seems to be the relevant part, although how they managed to sneak that in is anyones guess:
3.3 Where any person parks or leaves a vehicle in contravention of any of byelaws 6.2 to 6.6, 6.10, 6.16 to 6.18, 7.1, 7.2 or 7.7, or otherwise contravenes any of those byelaws in relation to a vehicle, the Company or its agents may (in its/their absolute discretion) either: 3.3.1 Apply a Parking Charge Notice 3.3.1.1 A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued in respect of the vehicle. The PCN will specify: 3.3.1.1.1 the sum the registered keeper is required to pay; 3.3.1.1.2 the time within which the payment must be made; and 3.3.1.1.3 the address to which the payment must be sent. 3.3.1.2 The PCN will also explain that unless payment is made in accordance with its terms, court action may be commenced to recover sum due from the registered keeper under the PCN together with costs, interest and any other sums legally recoverable; Sneaky. They've clearly tried to allow for a PCN to be issued directly to the RK, and to separate it from the normal penalty, but the byelaws make no mention of how "the sum" is determined, nor do they seem to allow for the PCN to be used as an alternative to prosecution - rather, the PCN is in addition to any prosecution. The byelaws also don't allow them to issue a PCN to anybody *other* than the RK. To cap it off, since the byelaws are criminal in nature, the contravention must surely be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or it didn't happen. So the correct process *should* be: 1. Prosecute the driver under the byelaws 2. Obtain a conviction 3. Issue a PCN to the Registered Keeper, since the contravention has now been proven to have occurred. I'd call their bluff. I note that your charge is offered as an alternative to prosecution under the byelaws. I respectfully decline your offer. As I was not the driver, it is none of my concern whether or not you choose to prosecute them under the byelaws. Do not contact me again. This post has been edited by TheDisapprovingBrit: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 17:39 |
|
|
Tue, 29 Nov 2016 - 20:13
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
You'd think so, but they clearly want to hedge their bets! 3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. Discrepancies 1/ Owed to THEM? Under the byelaw penalty it would be owed to the airport, so maybe they are now converting it to a civil claim. 2/ Debt recovery for a byelaw or is it now civil? 3/ Under the byelaw only the airport can proceed with a criminal court claim so that indicates they think it's civil Put all that in front of a judge (civil or criminal) - I don't see that happening somehow! Fines under byelaws are paid to the court not the airport. Fines are intended as a deterrent not as a reward for bringing a prosecution. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Thu, 1 Dec 2016 - 12:32
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 311 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,371 |
And another thing.
The driver breached byelaw 6.3: Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice. The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage loading/unloading whilst stationary on double red lines/obstructing the entrance to the car park in an area where there are a large presence of notices stating: “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”. My bold. One of those things is not like the other. |
|
|
Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 08:37
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 21 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,593 |
Thanks for the feedback so far.
What do you all think my next move should be? I obviously won't use IAS going off the advice off here. Should I leave it? Or send them another letter? Thanks again to everyone for all your help |
|
|
Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 08:57
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,167 Joined: 6 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,558 |
2 choices that I can see.
1. Ignore but the confetti will continue 2. Once past the 6 months with the timeout for the bylaw prosecution gone what valid reason do they have to retain the data. None that I can see so ripe for a claim for breach of DPA for £750. |
|
|
Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 09:45
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
And another thing. The driver breached byelaw 6.3: Wait in, leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is prohibited by notice. The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage loading/unloading whilst stationary on double red lines/obstructing the entrance to the car park in an area where there are a large presence of notices stating: “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”. My bold. One of those things is not like the other. FWIW, in the context of clause 3.3 of the airport bylaws, the Company or its agents have only three options: Apply a Parking Charge Notice, Apply a Wheel Clamp to the Vehicle or Remove the Vehicle. Presumably, with a CCTV ticket, no PCN was "applied" to the vehicle, nor was a wheel clamp, and it was not towed... --Churchmouse |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:21 |