PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ParkDirectUK. Hanover Close, Slough, Can I challenge.
GuyDashing
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 20:52
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



Hi All,
Driver stopped in this close for literally no more then 2 minutes to sort something out. A guy in plain cloths came in and took pictures of the car and disappeared. And today received this parking charge notice from ParkDirect UK. Just to clarify never got out of the car and the engine was still running.

Time on the pictures provided is 14:52 and the time of contravention is 15:11. (This is incorrect, was somewhere else at 15:11).
My question is are they allowed to do that and can I challenge this.
Notice serve date 29-03-21

Thanks for your help in advance.
Attached Image

Attached Image


This post has been edited by GuyDashing: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 21:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 20:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 20:55
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,010
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



Edit your post to remove who was driving. Parking companies monitor this forum for information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PJG
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 20:59
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,328



More skilled and knowledgable will come along to outline your course of action soon. Till then can you edit your post and change reference as to who the driver is, You do not identify the driver. You word the post as 'The Reg Keeper of the vehicle' . Parking companies view this forum and the trick is not to identify who the driver is. More on that later from others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 21:06
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



Is the post OK now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 21:10
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,322
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



What's the dates on the notice.

Still possible to infer the identity of the driver

Images of the signs and their location might help

Could be prohibiting signs

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 21:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 21:14
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47,676
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GuyDashing @ Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 22:06) *
Is the post OK now?

No.

The whole point is so that the parking company reading this post can’t use it as proof of driver ID, it’s not there yet.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 11:14
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



In this pic,
Red line on the left is where vehicle was stopped.
Green arrow on the right is where the sign is.

Thank you for your help.

[attachment=75059:Screensh...711_Maps.jpg]

This post has been edited by GuyDashing: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 20:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 14:01
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,322
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



What does the sign say?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The D Team
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 14:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Dec 2020
Member No.: 110,817



The normal meaning of a single yellow line on public roads is that 'parking' is not allowed during certain times, but this is not the same as 'stopping' which can be allowed on single and double yellow lines. Since this is alleged to be private land, there would have to be a contractual sign telling you what the restrictions were, and you would need time to read them, or they would need to be readable as you drove down the road.
VCS v Ward was a case where a motorist lost a case in which he had contravened a 'no stopping' restriction. It was made clear in the judgement that this had to be clearly signed. In your case it seems it may not clearly signed. It seems reasonable to stop on the single yellow in order to then determine the restriction, and leave without accepting a contract if not acceptable to you.
Were there signs you could safely have seen whilst moving in order to know not to stop on the yellow? In the invoice they sent, do they assert any particular period you were stopped for?

This post has been edited by The D Team: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 14:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 16:39
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



Vehicle wasn't stopped at the yellow line though. It was stopped past the yellow line (as marked red on the left of the above picture.).
It doesn't say any duration on the invoice. Just say the time of contravention.(it doesn't match the time on the pictures).

I will have to go back to check what it says on the sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The D Team
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 16:50
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 2 Dec 2020
Member No.: 110,817



sorry i mistook the gutter for a line on their pic. What exactly is the 'no stopping' restriction they refer to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 16:58
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36,124
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



That's got to be some of the worst signage I've ever seen. Here.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 20:54
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



QUOTE (The D Team @ Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 17:50) *
sorry i mistook the gutter for a line on their pic. What exactly is the 'no stopping' restriction they refer to?


This is the pictures of the sign.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 10:08
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47,676
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



OK so a classic Honey trap in that it says no parking/stopping but there is no way at all to understand that that is the case until the driver stops so that they can read the sign!


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 11:05
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 11:08) *
OK so a classic Honey trap in that it says no parking/stopping but there is no way at all to understand that that is the case until the driver stops so that they can read the sign!


Can this be challenged?

Shall I send the below letter as an initial appeal?


Dear Park Direct UK Ltd,
I am the registered keeper of XXXXXXX and wish to invoke your appeals process for the parking charge notice reference number: XXXXX dated 29/03/2021.

I deny all liability to pay this parking charge on the following grounds:

There is no Keeper Liability as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only applies to parking incidents, and by Park Direct UK Ltd own admission, your parking charge notice has been raised in relation to a Stopping/Waiting incident. Furthermore, by stating that Protection of Freedom Act 2012 applies in your paperwork means that you have incorrectly stated your legal position with regards to liability.

Park Direct signage is non-compliant with the British Parking Associations’ Code of Practice and no contract was made with the driver.

The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition for Notice to Keeper cases, is the only photographic evidence you can use according to the British Parking Associations Codes of practice and from the pictures raised on the parking charge notice, you can clearly see that the use of automatic number plate recognition is absent, suggesting bad practice on your part.

The parking charge is disproportionate, punitive and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner for the alleged contravention.

You do not have sufficient contractual authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices.

You have set out your case in your parking charge notice; this is the response and the formal appeal.

You therefore have two options;

1) Either accept the grounds of appeal and cancel the parking charge
Or
2) Refuse the appeal and provide me with the unique appeal reference number for the Independent Appeal Service.


Regards,


Xxxxxx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 13:48
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,322
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



It is a forbidding sign, in that there is no contract to park offered for unauthorised vehicles.

Here's some text I saved about unauthorised with a permit but the principle is the same.

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. to claim that a contract to park was created when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 14:52
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 14:48) *
It is a forbidding sign, in that there is no contract to park offered for unauthorised vehicles.

Here's some text I saved about unauthorised with a permit but the principle is the same.

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. to claim that a contract to park was created when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.



Shall I add this wording to the letter above or send just this wording? Thank you for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 19:35
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,322
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Suitably modify it and add to your letter.

Genuine prestimate of loss is a no no after Beavis
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GuyDashing
post Sat, 10 Apr 2021 - 12:28
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 7 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,184



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 9 Apr 2021 - 20:35) *
Suitably modify it and add to your letter.

Genuine prestimate of loss is a no no after Beavis

Thank you very much for your help!

I've sent the appeal today. Let's see what happens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulPaul1308
post Sat, 10 Apr 2021 - 12:50
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,709



What will happen next is that your appeal will be rejected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 17th April 2021 - 05:24
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.