PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Premier Park - Ilfracombe
Sting74
post Tue, 22 Aug 2017 - 20:27
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,668



Hi.....I have contacted BMPA and they have requested that I post on here as this is an odd one. I have received a PCN from an automated 'Robocam' (ANPR system) at the Ropery Car Park in Ilfracombe. It is stating the vehicle has overstayed by 18 mins in a Council owned car park but managed by Premier Park. Well it is not stating that actually, it is only stating what time the vehicle entered and then left the car park...it does not say how long the vehicle overstayed...they have not proved the overstay??

Questions....
1. Is 18 mins reasonable and within the grace period?
2. Is the attached PCN PoFA 2012 compliant?
3. Do I fight or pay?

Please help.

Attached File  Scan1.pdf ( 649.23K ) Number of downloads: 71

Attached File  Scan2.pdf ( 809.69K ) Number of downloads: 52

Attached File  Scan0006.pdf ( 162.74K ) Number of downloads: 75


This post has been edited by Sting74: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Tue, 22 Aug 2017 - 20:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 22 Aug 2017 - 21:20
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



If this is a council owned car park, ie a parking order on the land, and the council are a traffic authority then the land is not relevant land for the purpose of POFA and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.

Find out a bit more about that land and its ownership
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 22 Aug 2017 - 21:30
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,683
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Errrrm...have Ilfracombe Town Council been asleep?

http://www.ilfracombetowncouncil.gov.uk/ne...at-ropery-road/

They cannot run public car parks as if it were private land!

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4512.0

Nor can they use ANPR! Look what happened to Wycome Council when reported by our own bargepole:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...banned-for.html

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/15116...ef=mrb&lp=9

'' WDC announced it had been forced to ditch ANPR in favour of pay-and-display following the government’s decision to restrict data held by the DVLA. However Cllr Wood passed blame over to the DVLA, after insisting the WDC had thoroughly investigated the parking system. She said: “We took advice on the lawful way of using ANPR enforcement and a conversation with DVLA who at that time saw no problem with us rolling the system out.

It was then they subsequently removed access to registered keeper data which has obviously impacted on how we have been able to run the service.''


Popcorn time - ask bargepole for the wording he used to drop Wycombe Council in the sticky stuff! DVLA complaint needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sting74
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:14
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,668



Hi...thanks for the replies.....I am new to this, so apologies in advance.

I have read the links but am still a little unsure......

The Ropery Car Park is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council....they employee Premier Park Ltd to manage the car park...they have installed ANPR to do this....it is Premier Park who have issued me with a postal Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper (although I was not the driver at the time).

The links say that it was the Council who cannot use ANPR and access the DVLA data....but it appears to me (I may be wrong) that it is Premier Park who can and have done this?

Sorry, I'm a bit confused.

The ticket and the reply from ITC are attached at the top.

Is there any chance someone could explain in 'idiot' terms so I can understand and know how to fight back......sorry!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:23
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As the land is owned by the council and they have a parking order on it then it is no relevant land as required to hold the keeper liable under POFA. The car was not parked for those 18 minutes, it was moving in front of the cameras. If it's moving then it's not parked.

So you write back as the keeper stating that there is no keeper liability under POFA because this is not relevant land, as defined in the Act. Tell them to go away and chase the driver, who you will not be naming.

And edit your first post so that the identity of the driver is not revealed.

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sting74
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:38
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,668



Thank you Ostell...much appreciated.

In the first instance, do I appeal to the PPC and then go to POPLA or just write back direct to the PPC (Premier Park Ltd.)?

Also, in addition, I'm not sure that the PCN meets all the requirements of PoFA 2012? There is no creditor listed? There is no time stated that the car overstayed? Just that the car entered the car park at 1027 hr and left at 1145 hr?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:48
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You need to write to the PPC first and when they reject they give a code so that you can go to POPLA.

In addition to the comment I gave above you can also tell them that they also failed to comply with the requirements of POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 and their own trade association Code of Conduct.

You can add more POFA failures to you POPLA appeal if it gets that far.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Flobber
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 07:50
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 1 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,182



You can still deduce who the driver might be in the posts, refer to the "driver" entered the car park, they accuse the "driver" of the over stay etc.


--------------------
Flobber 1-0 Parking Eye
Flobber 1-0 One Parking Solutions
Flobber 1-0 Euro Car Parks
Flobber 1-0 Highview

Flobber 1-0 TfL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sting74
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 08:01
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,668



Thanks both.....I'll contact the PPC and then no doubt POPLA and let you know how I get on.

I'll use some template letters from MSE etc and adjust them to suit.

Cheers.

I think I've amended the first post now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 09:39
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You also need to take up the point that the council are NOT allowed to employ a private firm that uses ANPR. You MUST drop them into the DVLA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sting74
post Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 11:05
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,668



Hi Guys...I am about to send this to the PPC to appeal....does it sound OK?

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am appealing Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice ******* as the keeper of the vehicle.
I do not have to tell you who was the driver, and I will not.
I am appealing the NTK/PCN on the following grounds……

The NTK/PCN is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In order to be able to invoke Keeper liability, the Operator’s NTK has to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. Your NTK failed to do so.

• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a), the NTK did not specify a period of parking to which the notice related. The NTK specified the date and times when the Operator’s ANPR equipment recorded the vehicle entering and leaving the site; however, these times do not equate to the actual period of parking.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (b), the NTK did not inform the keeper that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e), the NTK did not contain a statement that the creditor did not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, inviting the keeper (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (h), the NTK did not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.

In addition, the land to which you refer is not ‘relevant land’ as per Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Paragraph 3 as the land is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council and managed by Premier Park Ltd.

The council are not allowed to employ a private firm to manage their land, look up what happened in relation to Wycombe District Council when they were banned from accessing the DVLA information.

In addition, even if the NTK/PCN was correct (which it isn’t), the only evidence you have provided is a vehicle entering and leaving the land on an ANPR camera, it does not show the vehicle parked at all, it just shows it moving in front of a camera.

I believe that data in relation to the vehicle has been illegally acquired via the DVLA as Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 does not apply and I will be seeking to recover damages to myself via the courts.

Therefore, please cancel this NTK/PCN or provide me with a POPLA code so I can appeal to them, which will cost you a sum of money.

Kindest regards……
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 24 Aug 2017 - 11:36
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



WIll you seek to recover? Or do yo instead just warn them that, shoudl they attempt court action you will counterclaim for misuse?

You didnt even state the reason why it is non relevant land - that there is a PPO in place, as confirmed in council minutes X and a copy is enclosed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knowyourights
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 13:13
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 14 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,395



what happened?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SilverMitsubishi
post Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 11:54
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 6 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,257



Any news?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 16:55
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,805
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Sting74 hasn't been back on the forum for more than a year. You could try sending a PM in the hope that E mail notifications are turned on.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
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: Friday, 21st September 2018 - 16:49
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.