NPE - ticket even after parking within rules |
NPE - ticket even after parking within rules |
Sat, 28 May 2022 - 22:47
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Hello
NPE have issued an invoice stating "vehicle not registered on permit database". However, the car was parking in a disabled bay, displaying a blue badge for the entire parking period and driver was visiting an onsite resident as required by their T&Cs. There is no applicable requirement to register on a permit database. The badge was displayed on the passenger side and obscured by another car so it is not visible in zoomed in cctv images. The signage makes no mention of where to put the badge so it can be seen from a camera (located 1pm from car). They have parked there before without any issues. In addition to simply laying out the facts that the badge was on display the entire time and sending a picture of the badge, is there anything else I should add? I suspect they will ignore it as usual so want to cover all potential bases. This post has been edited by AlCapwn: Sat, 28 May 2022 - 22:48 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 28 May 2022 - 22:47
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 29 May 2022 - 04:38
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
“Vehicles must have an e-permit”, it’s there as clear as day, there are then additional requirements such as having a BB in a disabled bay (which cannot, legally, be a requirement but I digress). That’s why you have been sent the charge notice.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sun, 29 May 2022 - 06:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,074 Joined: 17 Nov 2015 Member No.: 80,686 |
It doesn't say that?
The word 'all' is missing and I'd interpret that as having separate terms for disabled badge owners? Am I missing the 'how to get an e-permit' part too? |
|
|
Sun, 29 May 2022 - 07:28
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
An e-permit is for allocated parking, this is visitor parking where badge holders are exempt from paying. Just to be sure, I went to bay4pay.co.uk and no option to register for disabled visitor parking exists.
An e-permit is a manual process where a resident submits documentation for their car and is allocated a numbered bay for their sole use if one is available. VRMs allowed to park there are then pre-registered with the permit team. They parked there previously with no issue. This post has been edited by AlCapwn: Sun, 29 May 2022 - 07:39 |
|
|
Sun, 29 May 2022 - 07:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 1 May 2022 Member No.: 116,460 |
If I was reading those notices for the first time on site my understanding would be that there are permit only and visitor spaces. The visitor spaces are marked with a V and are pay on arrival or free to blue badge holders. The disabled spaces do not have a V and so are for disabled permit holders. As a visitor you'd only be entitled to free parking in a bay marked with a V whilst displaying the blue badge.
|
|
|
Mon, 30 May 2022 - 19:28
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
I walked around the estate today, all the bays have a bay number or Visitor bay number. This bay is the odd one out, just says Disabled.
Is there any defence here? Or suck it up and take it as a learning experience? |
|
|
Tue, 31 May 2022 - 08:47
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Well I emailed NPE and they said this is free for blue badge holders. Unfortunately blue badge was obscured by another car and not visible on cctv
|
|
|
Tue, 31 May 2022 - 08:51
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I doubt they use CCTV to monitor for a BB, more likely a warden.
They are often incentivised on tickets and thus will take photo's from imaginative angles to justify the issue. -------------------- 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, 31 May 2022 - 09:00
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
They don't use wardens at all, it's all cctv now. They did zoom in on the dash but the badge was not visible from that angle. Very annoying!
|
|
|
Tue, 31 May 2022 - 09:02
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
In which case once you show that the BB was displayed and it was their error in failing to see it you have a GDPR complaint as they no longer have a reasonable cause for continuing to process your data.
You can show this with a video showing the badge displayed and then moving to the same view as the CCTV and it disappearing. -------------------- 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, 31 May 2022 - 09:37
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Thanks, I'll make a video showing that. Is there any case precedent you're aware of?
|
|
|
Tue, 31 May 2022 - 09:39
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
In parking cases there is essentially no real precedent bar PE v Beavis. So no. But you don't need it. You re just showing that on the balance of probabilities the badge was on display. The video does one part, and your witness testimony the other.
|
|
|
Tue, 31 May 2022 - 09:49
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,363 Joined: 9 Apr 2021 Member No.: 112,205 |
Most parking cases don't go beyond the County Court small claims track, which doesn't create precedent. But as said, all you essentially need to do is successfully swing the balance of probabilities in your favour.
At the moment the evidence is their CCTV with no badge visible. Your video, and testimony that one was on display will hopefully help to demonstrate that a badge was visible, and they failed to spot it, due to their enforcement system not being fit for purpose. -------------------- Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice | International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice |
|
|
Sun, 5 Jun 2022 - 00:15
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Can I get some feedback on this response please
QUOTE To whom it may concern, I write to you as keeper of vehicle XXXXX. I deny your claim I am liable for any charge due to the following: 1) The car was parked in accordance with the terms and conditions. The parking terms and conditions require a blue badge to be on display while parked and parking should be to visit an onsite resident. Both of these conditions were met. The blue badge was put on the dashboard on the passenger side but the view was obscured to the camera by another car parked in front. 2) NPE have implemented a CCTV system which: a. Is deficient b. Is not fit for purpose NPE’s CCTV system does not allow them to view the entire dashboard of the car for a disabled badge when parked in a disabled bay if another car is parked in front. It is not the fault of the keeper or driver that NPE have implemented a deficient system which does not allow them to check if the driver has parked in a compliant manner. If parking was checked by a warden, they would have found the blue badge on display. From the photos provided, it is clear NPE have relied solely on CCTV and have only been able to check the driver’s side of the dashboard. The error is on NPE’s part for implementing a system which is not fit for purpose. I refer you to IPC Code of Practice section 14.5: “Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification.” As NPE’s deficient CCTV system cannot check if a badge is on display, you could not have had ‘Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due’ and have failed to adhere to this requirement. I will be complaining to the IPC about this behaviour. In support of the above, I have attached a video showing how if NPE’s system was fit for purpose and able to check the dashboard, it would have seen the disabled badge. I have also attached pictures of the same. RE complaining to IPC, I previously complained about NPE's debt collector agent using misleading language and they said they will not use that wording again. So I fully intend to complain to them again about NPE using a system with crappy coverage. |
|
|
Sun, 5 Jun 2022 - 11:29
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,065 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Piecing this together:
the car was parking in a disabled bay This cannot be seen from the photos embedded in the PCN, so we're left to accept the OP's statement. Therefore, any matters regarding conditions attaching to 'V' or 'Visitors' bays do not apply, IMO. However, conditions attaching to 'Visitor Parking' do and the sign headed as such states: 'Blue badge holders parking in a visitor bay are exempt from paying whilst clearly displaying a valid Blue Badge and visiting an onsite resident'. IMO, it would be a nonsense to then suggest that BB holders parking in a disabled bay would be liable to payment, whereas parking is free in a visitor bay. IMO, the signs in combination mean that BB holders alone may use visitor bays or disabled bays and that payment is not required in either case. IMO, the PPC is being idle and acting contrary to the spirit if not the content of the BPA CoP by looking to monitor use by camera because whereas these can compare VRMs against payments/permits held, they cannot identify valid BBs. The PCN could therefore be nothing more than them asking for proof of holding a valid BB and I would approach any representations in this way. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2022 - 20:39
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Thanks for the feedback. I amended and submitted the response today (running out of time). Just to note, NPE are part of IPC not BPA so I didn't mention BPA in my response.
|
|
|
Wed, 8 Jun 2022 - 12:11
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Surprisingly they decided to cancel the charge, I guess someone does read the appeal after all.
Thank you all for your help. I will still complain to the IPC although I know they are all in cahoots. I was fortunate enough to be able to handle this for my relative but am sure there are many out there getting caught for the same reason. |
|
|
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 - 20:23
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 130 Joined: 1 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,158 |
Would their issuing of this PCN be a breach of DVLA rules for accessing keeper data? They clearly didn't do their due diligence before accessing it
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 - 22:27
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
They have no obligation to do due diligence.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:24 |