PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CCTV PCN Park Watch Chester at Silver St Bristol Easter Saturday, Contravention: 'No Waiting'
NLondoner
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Got this 'No Waiting' PCN today, 9 days after the alleged incident. Never had a non-Council one before - doesn't seem fair.
Am asking them to cancel it because their signs are awful but I wonder if there are any other grounds?

Pepipoo is full of great resources. I searched for Park Watch and went through the responses.
Can't find any discussions about Park Watch on the MopneySavingExpert site (who apparently used to be called Defence Systems) apart from this one (Park Watch PCN)

I also found these in case that helps anyone:
Helpful newbie guide on MoneySavingExpert
Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking section on MoneySavingExpert
Successful complaints about private parking tickets - how to get them cancelled!
POPLA site - What happens after you get refused and receive an appeal code

Thanks to a MoneySavingExpert.com forum post, want to email to appeals@parkwatch.co.uk this text:
---------- suggested email -------
Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number: xxxxxxx

I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:

1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.

I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner, PureGym.

If you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.

Yours faithfully,

my name
Registered keeper of car reg num
My address and email
--------- ends -------------
Very glad of any comments.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 08:16
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,688
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Don't rely on POPLA spotting anything to your advantage, you must clearly and explicitly spell it out for them. Go through their evidence with a fine tooth comb and repudiate anything you don't agree with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 08:29
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks Sheffield Dave and emanresu for this point. Unless people say otherwise, I'll put, in the PoPLA text box for additional comments:

In point 11 of their 'Case Summary' Parkwatch write "there is not an offer to park or wait ...".
Without an offer, there can never be a breach of contract. Only a landowner can sue for trespass (qv ParkingEye v Beavis)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:19
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Assuming the driver wasnt identified, and you pointed this out in your POPLA appeal, Parkwatch DO NOT appear to have said they are holding the keeper liable? Is that correct?
If so you need to state
In their response Parkwatch accepts that the keeper is not liable, and does not dispute this fact. As such, against a keeper appellant this appeal MUST succeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:07
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:19) *
Assuming the driver wasnt identified, and you pointed this out in your POPLA appeal, Parkwatch DO NOT appear to have said they are holding the keeper liable? Is that correct?
If so you need to state
In their response Parkwatch accepts that the keeper is not liable, and does not dispute this fact. As such, against a keeper appellant this appeal MUST succeed.

Thanks nosferatu1001.

I did tell PoPLA (at the very end of my submision, detailed in this post earlier in the thread ) that I was not the driver and can prove it.

Parkwatch in their PoPLA response above stated:
"the appllcant is aware that as the registered keeper under the relevant sections of the POFA they will be pursued for the liability for the PCN if they do not identify the driver and provide their details accordingly. The drivers details have not been provided to Park Watch therefore the liability has been accepted by the registered keeper."

So that means they hold the keeper liable, doesn't it?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:38
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,688
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



There is no requirement to identify the driver and not doing so does NOT mean that the keeper has accepted liability. Make sure POPLA know this.

As there was no contract to park in place then the driver had no liability for the alleged charge and therefore the keeper cannot possibly be liable for this non existent charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:52
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It means theyre trying to bluff their way into it, hoping POPLA wont notice

Did you detail the ways they failed to hold the keeper liable under POFA, yes or no?
POint out to pOPLA that a Keeper doesnt "accept" liabiolity, they can only remove it through actions. Parkwatch have not proven they have complied with POFA, therefore the appellant appeal must succeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 11:57
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks everyone - bit confused as to what is needed to add now that I've been able to read Parwatch's 'case summary' which makes statements I don't agree with.
There is a textbox for my response, which must be limited to new comments provked by PArkwatch's response.

Did want to add but don't think I can:
There is no requirement to identify the driver and not doing so does NOT mean that the keeper has accepted liability.
A keeper doesn't "accept" liability, they can only remove it through actions.
As there was no contract to park in place then the driver had no liability for the alleged charge and therefore the keeper cannot possibly be liable for this non existent charge.

However, the text at https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/ states that compaines like Parkwatch must:

Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.

Nosferatu,
"Did you detail the ways they failed to hold the keeper liable under POFA, yes or no? "
No, I didn't because I can't see any ways in which they failed to hold the keeper liable according to https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/ either.
I want to include this bit:

Parkwatch have not proven they have complied with POFA, therefore the appellant appeal must succeed.

but Parkwatch have complied so I can't, can I? If Parkwatch ask for the driver's name and the keeper doesn't say who it is, the keeper is liable and Parkwatch have complied with the POFA, haven't they?

-------------- so this is what I think I can put in the 'response to Parkwatch evidence' textbox --------
Matter arising from the Parkwatch Case Summary:
In point 11 Parkwatch write "there is not an offer to park or wait ...".
Without an offer, there can never be a breach of contract. Only a landowner can sue for trespass (qv ParkingEye v Beavis)
------------------

Thanks so much for the help!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 12:37
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Of course you can state that. It is not new evidence, it is a direct response to ParkWatch claiming something thats complete crap.

No contract for...? Be specific!

They must comply with ALL parts of POFA! They cannot just ask for the drivers name and that be it. Did they include period of parking, teh correct timescales ie 28 days starting the day after that on which the notice is givenm etc? If you yourself are trying to use POFA then surely you know this already, as you needed to do it for your appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 09:51
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Sorry Nosferatu - don't want to try your patience but I'm all at sea here. I don't understand what this means:

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 13:37) *
Of course you can state that. It is not new evidence, it is a direct response to ParkWatch claiming something thats complete crap.

No contract for...? Be specific!

They must comply with ALL parts of POFA! They cannot just ask for the drivers name and that be it. Did they include period of parking, teh correct timescales ie 28 days starting the day after that on which the notice is givenm etc? If you yourself are trying to use POFA then surely you know this already, as you needed to do it for your appeal?


They seem to have got the procedure right. Their original paperwork seems OK, they notified me in time, followed up in time, declined my appeal within the allowed time period. Their signage and the wording on it seem OK (given that it's a totally unreasonable thing to take over a pavement like this). The only flaw I can see was that they put liability on me whereas I wasn't driving. However it seems reasonable to me that, if they're right, PoPLA allows them to give me the chance to say who the driver was and if I don't say, pursue me for the liability. They did this by providing a space on their form for me to give the drivers' details.

I did notice that customer Licence Agreement (posted earlier in this thread, towards the end of the post) looks as if it's had the customer details redacted - wanted to point out that if they can fling my personal details around in PoPLA, I should be able to see the name and address of their customer. Is that a valid point or just nit-picking as I don't doubt they have a customer and I don't really care who it is?

Thought maybe I could include things I doubted as better minds than mine here on this thread might see that they are actually valid points. So my reaction to the Parkwatch Case Summary becomes:

-------------- what I think I can put in the 'response to Parkwatch evidence' textbox --------
Matter arising from the Parkwatch Case Summary:
a) In point 11 Parkwatch write "there is not an offer to park or wait ...".
Without an offer, there can never be a breach of contract. Only a landowner can sue for trespass (qv ParkingEye v Beavis).

b) In their response Parkwatch accepts that the keeper is not liable, and does not dispute this fact. As such, against a keeper appellant this appeal MUST succeed.

c) Parkwatch has responded to my request that they show they have a contract with the landowner with a document - Evidence V2. The landowner name and address and the name of the signatory are absent, so I cannot complain to them. This is not a contract or agreement unless fully complete. Parkwatch have failed to conform to PoPLA standards in this respect.
------------------





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 12:28
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK youre missing something critical

The KEEPER isnt liable for a drivers contract issues, UNLESS they follow the reuqirements of POFA2012, schedulee 4, paragraphs 8 (if there was a notice to driver) or 9 (if there wasnt)

THAT is the only document that sets out what "in time" means, for example - within 14 days if using para 9 (where there was no windscreen notice), or between 29 and 56 for the para 8 (where there was a windscreen notice)

However it takes MORE THAN merely hitting this first deadline - they must include statutory wording on their notices to keeper in order to enable them to claim from the keeper. You MUST know about this, otherwise you have gone badly wrong in your research. This legislation has been in place for 6 years now.

Irrelevant who their customers actual name is, unles syou want to bring up doubts that the person signing had any authority to do so. WHich of course, you DO want to say - you cannot confirm through e.g. companies house search that the person signing is a real person, with authority to sign, so there is reasonable doubt the contract is valid. There is NO DPA concern over redacting a name on a commercial contract. NONE.

POPLA DOES NOT HAVE STANDARDS - the requirement for a landowner contract comes from teh BPA CoP. So you state that as the contract is incomplete, they have failed to meet the obligations under the BPA CoP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 14:52
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 13:28) *
OK youre missing something critical

The KEEPER isnt liable for a drivers contract issues, UNLESS they follow the reuqirements of POFA2012, schedulee 4, paragraphs 8 (if there was a notice to driver) or 9 (if there wasnt)

THAT is the only document that sets out what "in time" means, for example - within 14 days if using para 9 (where there was no windscreen notice), or between 29 and 56 for the para 8 (where there was a windscreen notice)

However it takes MORE THAN merely hitting this first deadline - they must include statutory wording on their notices to keeper in order to enable them to claim from the keeper. You MUST know about this, otherwise you have gone badly wrong in your research. This legislation has been in place for 6 years now.

Irrelevant who their customers actual name is, unles syou want to bring up doubts that the person signing had any authority to do so. WHich of course, you DO want to say - you cannot confirm through e.g. companies house search that the person signing is a real person, with authority to sign, so there is reasonable doubt the contract is valid. There is NO DPA concern over redacting a name on a commercial contract. NONE.

POPLA DOES NOT HAVE STANDARDS - the requirement for a landowner contract comes from teh BPA CoP. So you state that as the contract is incomplete, they have failed to meet the obligations under the BPA CoP.


Gosh thanks Nosferatu!
I can't tell if their wording is exact - it looks as if it is but I've no legal knowledge or experience so might well be missing the point.
Here's the latest version I hope to submit, taking account of the correct origin of the law you so kindly supplied:
-------------- what I think I can put in the 'response to Parkwatch evidence' textbox --------
Matter arising from the Parkwatch Case Summary:
a) In point 11 Parkwatch write "there is not an offer to park or wait ...".
Without an offer, there can never be a breach of contract. Only a landowner can sue for trespass (qv ParkingEye v Beavis).

b) In their response Parkwatch accepts that the keeper is not liable, and does not dispute this fact. As such, against a keeper appellant this appeal MUST succeed.

c) Parkwatch has responded to my request (that they show they have a contract with the landowner) with a document - Evidence V2. The landowner name and address and the name of the signatory are absent, so I cannot confirm that the person signing is a real person, with authority to sign. So there is reasonable doubt the contract is valid.

This is not a contract or agreement unless fully complete. Parkwatch have failed to conform to the BPA Code of Practice in this respect.
------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:37
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You can't argue pofa now unless you already raised it as being non compliant. That would be a new point. But as you say they have said the keeper isn't liable, so they're not arguing pofa has been met.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:50
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:37) *
You can't argue pofa now unless you already raised it as being non compliant. That would be a new point. But as you say they have said the keeper isn't liable, so they're not arguing pofa has been met.

Thanks again nosferatu!
These were my original points (headlines only, full text here):
1. ParkWatch has no contractual authority
2. Signage is inadequate and unclear
3. Loading\unloading is allowed and is NOT parking
4. ParkWatch has not complied with the mandatory ICO data protection Code of Practice for surveillance cameras and personal information.
5. I was not the driver. I hired out my car to another person via EasyCar and can prove it.

Now they've submitted their case summary I've added these points (full text)
-------------- what I put in the 'response to Parkwatch evidence' textbox --------
Matter arising from the Parkwatch Case Summary:
a) In point 11 Parkwatch write "there is not an offer to park or wait ...".
Without an offer, there can never be a breach of contract. Only a landowner can sue for trespass (qv ParkingEye v Beavis).

b) In their response Parkwatch accepts that the keeper is not liable, and does not dispute this fact. As such, against a keeper appellant this appeal MUST succeed.

c) Parkwatch has responded to my request (that they show they have a contract with the landowner) with a document - Evidence V2. The landowner name and address and the name of the signatory are absent, so I cannot confirm that the person signing is a real person, with authority to sign. So there is reasonable doubt the contract is valid.

This is not a contract or agreement unless fully complete. Parkwatch have failed to conform to the BPA Code of Practice in this respect.
------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 07:56
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



AH OK
You arent the keeper, just the registered keeper.
The keeper at the time was the person in charge of the vehicle - the hirer. So you need to say that they accept the keeper isnt responsible, and you are only teh registered keeper and not even the keeper. But maybe dont add that detail in - it might confuse POPLA!

You ony have 2000 characters. So for c) dont bother with al the waffle. Just state the purported contract fails to include....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 15:43
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks Nosferatu, posted it on the PoPLA site - it's post back as soon as I know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:22
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no waiting.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant states that the operator has no contractual authority. The appellant states that the signage is inadequate and unclear. The appellant states that loading/unloading is allowed, and is not parking. The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the ICO Code of Practice in relation to cameras and personal information. The appellant states that he was not the driver, but hired the car out.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “ONLY deliveries to tenants permitted… 30 minutes maximum delivery time”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, remaining on site for 15 minutes despite not being a permitted delivery vehicle as per the signage.
The appellant states that the operator has no contractual authority. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.
In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land.
The appellant states that the signage is inadequate and unclear. The operator has provided evidence of signage, which I am satisfied would be visible to the driver when they parked.
While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.
Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site, I am satisfied that the driver was afforded this opportunity.
The appellant states that loading/unloading is allowed, and is not parking. While I appreciate the appellant says he was loading, the evidence provided by the operator shows only vehicles authorised to load are permitted to remain on site.
The appellant states that the operator has not complied with the ICO Code of Practice in relation to cameras and personal information. If the appellant believes this so, he would need to direct any concerns to the ICO. POPLA is an appeals service only, not a regulator.
The appellant states that he was not the driver, but hired the car out. In this case, I cannot see that the driver of the vehicle has been identified at any point in the appeals process. As such, the operator is seeking to pursue the appellant, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 sets out provisions for an operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle, where the driver has not been identified. As the operator is seeking to pursue the keeper, I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge.
Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver waited in a no waiting area, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:13
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Sounds like the summary of your case is inaccurate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 09:29
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Member No.: 45,063



Thanks Nosferatu - I agree but who am I to judge? My submission was exactly what I posted (with your kind help) and the PoPLA response is exactly what is in the post above - word-for-word (except I left out the name of the adjudicator).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 09:37
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,304
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (NLondoner @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:22) *
As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge.

How about naming the driver now? Prior to proceedings this will disengage any such liability...


--------------------
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

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
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 11:55
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



QUOTE (NLondoner @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 10:29) *
Thanks Nosferatu - I agree but who am I to judge? My submission was exactly what I posted (with your kind help) and the PoPLA response is exactly what is in the post above - word-for-word (except I left out the name of the adjudicator).

The point I was making is that POPLA have summarised your case INCORRECTLY as regards who the keeper was.

So you need to complain about it. If they have looked at this on the wrong basis, thats thEIR procedural error.
Do you understand what they *I believe* have messed up? It should be obviuous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Sunday, 18th November 2018 - 19:40
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.