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 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 18:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:03
Post #41


Member


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



Thanks Nosferatu but I don't see the procedural error, it's not obvious to me.
The adjudicator states that the driver has not been identified but they've reviewed the law and the keeper is liable.
Is that it?

Thanks JLC - not sure how to go about naming the driver to them, won't they simply say 'case closed' go away?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:29
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,137
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Under POFA if the driver has been identified before court action then there can be no keeper liability. POFA 5 (1) (b) & 5 (2)

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 12:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 13:32
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



they cannot say "case closed", of course. It is only when proceedings have STARTED that the keeper cannot get out of it

Earlier you said "5. I was not the driver. I hired out my car to another person via EasyCar and can prove it. "
This means you were not hte Keeper

Under POFA ONLY the KEEPER is liable. The RK is *assumed* to be the Keeper UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE

You proved otherwise
the person hiring the car was the keeper. This is indisputable as they were in day to day control of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 14:34
Post #44


Member


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



Thanks Nosferatu!
----------------------------------------------------
There seems to be no way to add anything at all to the case on the PoPlA website once logged in.
They've closed it on their website, so I presume I just email them and ask for an acknowledgement of receipt?
-------------- suggested email to PoPLA ------
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 only the keeper is liable. The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless proven otherwise.
I have proved otherwise so am not liable. Please correct this procedural error as soon as possible.
--------------------------
Really want this to work smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 20:55
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,137
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you can tell them that the car was hired out and give the details of the hirer/keeper and also send copies of any paperwork you hold. It is then up to the hirer to appeal.

POFA section 13 for you and 14 for the hirer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 09:17
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Ostell - you dont even need to do that.
The OP isnt liable, as not the Keeper

You need to submit a COMPLAINT OP. You require them to review your case as they have made a procedural error: they have ignored that the vehicle was hired out, and the appellant was not therefore the vehicles keeper. This is not disputable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:04
Post #47


Member


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



Thanks Nosferatu, I will make a complaint. The adjudicator wrote "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" so I can't write that they've 'ignored that the vehicle was hired out' can I?

-------------- suggested complaint text to PoPLA ------
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 only the keeper is liable. The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless proven otherwise.
I have proven otherwise so am not liable. Please correct this procedural error as soon as possible.
--------------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:35
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



YES YOU CAN

Because that statement is not correct!

POFA allows them to purseu *the keeper* of the vehicle. Check the legislation out for yourself!
The RK is *assumed* to be the keeper *unless proven otherwise*. You proved otherwise, and the operator did NOT dispute this therefore they accepted you were not the keeper.

I suggest you flesh out yoru complain by DIRECTLY referencing the legislation, and provide evidence the vehicle was hired - although you can point out this is not necessary, as you notice the operator AND POPOLA did not dispute this fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:37
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,137
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:17) *
Ostell - you dont even need to do that.
The OP isnt liable, as not the Keeper


So the registered keeper is assumed to be liable unless the contrary can be proved, POFA 2 (1), so he will have to show that someone else was the keeper at the time. Or have I missed something in the thread? Has this been proved to Park Watch or POPLA? The statement "5. I was not the driver. I hired out my car to another person via EasyCar and can prove it." would be insufficient.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:42
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The keeper is responsible, and the RK is assumed to be the keeper unless..., to be more precise.

It was not disputed by the operator that the vehicle had been hired. IT was not disputed by POPLA. IT was acccepted by both of them, and PROVEN by the statement of the appellant as this is evidence - in POPLAs eyes.
It is only insuffieicne IF THEY HAD DISPUTED IT. They did not dispute it. They accepted it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 11:14
Post #51


Member


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



How's this:
-------------- suggested email to PoPLA ------
Complaint

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

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 only the keeper is liable. The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless proven otherwise.
It was not disputed by the operator that the vehicle had been hired. It was not disputed by POPLA.
It was proven by my statement that I was not the keeper at the time. This is accepted as evidence by POPLA.
It is only insufficient if they had disputed it. Neither POPLA nor the operator disputed it, they accepted it.

I have proved I am not the keeper so am not liable. Please correct this procedural error as soon as possible.
​p.s. here below is more proof I hired it out.​ (copy of car hire booking email with hirers name, phone number and email address)
--------------------------

This post has been edited by NLondoner: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 11:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 11:59
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well no, youve just copied and pasted. THe fourth sentence of mine makes no sentence when you are emailing to POPLA, does it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 13:11
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,864
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 10:37) *
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...

I know if I'd hired out my vehicle to a random third party, who then proceeded to needlessly attract a PPC vulture, I'd happily name the hirer. It's a mystery why the OP has not, but he can still do so before court proceedings have commenced. POPLA is irrelevant here.

Looking at paragraph 13 of Schedule 4, it offers a way out for "hire firms" than hire out vehicles to avoid RK liability, but this requires the provision of the hirer's name, address and the hire contract. (Not just saying "I could provide it"!) So, paragraph 13 might not be useful, but there is still the option to name the driver and provide the driver's address. That applies any time prior to the court claim.

The route the OP has chosen here, to allege that he was neither the keeper nor the driver (who will not be named), is also viable, but is trickier to use. Off hand, I'm not sure if the mere allegation that the RK was not the keeper is sufficient (even if not responded to by the claimant) to shift the burden of proof to the claimant. If it is, well done for burying your best argument at the bottom of your lengthy response!

I do think POPLA missed the point on this, as their cursory response to that argument was an oblique reference to the RK not having identified the driver when given the opportunity to do so, but getting POPLA to re-visit a decision is difficult enough when it is blatantly obvious that they have cocked up. This is more nuanced. I doubt they'll do anything.

Next stop: court! (Unless the driver gets identified in the meantime...)

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 16:51
Post #54


Member


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



I'm confused by the conflicting logic, as someone who more fully than ever understands that he doesn't have a legal mind. I am finding it hard to discern the arguments, let alone evaluate them.
I thought the whole thing unfair - that a tempting bit of public-looking pavement can be converted to a honey trap, that a tantalising big empty space in a parking-starved area can be flauntedly off-limits, that a reasonable use (unloading) is classed by robots as parking etc etc etc - the driver told me that the other two drivers escaped fines (no proof of that).
That's why I wanted to make it as difficult as possible for the parking operator (and hopefully the landowners) by exercising my right to say as little as possible.
I also wanted to find out how equitable the process is in case it helps someone on this forum as I've had a lot of help by kind people like @nosferatu and @schoolrunmum to mention just a few.
@churchmouse I've now told PoPla (in my complaint and with permission from the driver) who the driver was by forwarding the EasyCar booking email. Do you mean that I won't now have to go to court for redress or that I cannot win?
@nosferatu I'm sorry, did my best Which sentence does not apply please?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:11
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,137
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You must give ParkWatch the identity of the keeper of the car at the time of the alleged breach. Give the hire details as well. Parkwatch should withdraw and go after the keeper/hirer. That should fail because of POFA failures. Everybody wins, apart from Parkwatch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:12
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 309
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



You need to tell the PPC who the driver is. Telling POPLA is now irrelevant if you are post POPLA. You are still at risk of going to Court until such time as the PPC switches its focus on to the driver. Why you didn't't just out the driver in the first place is baffling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 09:33
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Or at least, out the hirer. Name and serviced address

Op- the fourt sentence of mine you copied. The subject in that sentence is wrong. Read it with your hat on that this is now popla you're talking to , the "they accepted it" doesn't work. It is "you both accepted it", as you're now talking to one of the two "they"s.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 17:07
Post #58


Member


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



Ah thanks @nosferatu - I have added the hire company email that names the driver and provides his contact details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:07
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,864
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



Yes, the whole PPC system is hugely unfair, and rapacious and many other nasty things as well. That's why most people who post here regularly try to help people with PPC problems. For you, there are several possible ways to deal with this, but by far the easiest way to solve your problem is for you to name and shame the person who was keeping the vehicle at the relevant time (and provide proof). It is really their problem, not yours.

Maybe you do that, and then the hirer/keeper comes to PePiPoo and asks for help? That's fine, we'll help him, too. But his task will be more difficult than yours, and may involve going to court (I don't know how litigious this PPC is), where there is always a risk of losing.

As mentioned above, the POPLA ship has sailed. They rarely reconsider their decisions--no matter how wrong they might be! POPLA used to be fairly competent, but it is still a "free shot" that is only binding on the PPC, so you're no worse off having tried it. At this stage, you can wait for the PPC to take you to court (and fight on the "traditional" grounds), or you can attempt to preempt that by providing the driver's details (as their NtK probably had requested). Some PPCs are too dim to realise the significance of your doing so, so they could attempt to take you to court anyway, but they would have a very low chance of winning if you had indeed provided the driver's details prior to their initiation of court proceedings.

I do appreciate your sentiment regarding making life more difficult for PPCs, but litigation is such an uncertain inconvenience that you really do want to avoid it if you have that opportunity.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NLondoner
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:38
Post #60


Member


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



Thanks @churchmouse,
So I've emailed off my complaint, adding the booking email giving the hirer's details (with his consent).
Fingers crossed they don't dismiss the complaint and do show the PPC my new evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Thursday, 20th September 2018 - 11:46
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.