PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCM - notice about being parked when not
goku
post Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 11:33
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



Location: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B03...#33;4d0.0451175

GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B03...#33;4d0.0451175

The driver pulled into Redbridge station on Friday 2nd August. The driver first entered the official station car park, but thought it best to not stay there to avoid any tickets. The driver then entered the land in question which was in the same area (i.e. the vicinity of the station). While entering the land, the driver noticed a sign stating that it was private land. The driver stayed in the car and tried to read one of the signs but couldn't make out the wording. The driver then turned around and drove to another sign and was able to see that it said no waiting or parking. The driver looked around and couldn't see any cameras. The driver tried to look up some information on this car park on the phone. During this time, the driver's passenger jumped into the car and the driver drove off (must have been there about 10-15 minutes). Signage pics in a post further below.

I received a Parking Charge Notice which shows pictures being taken from one of the cars that was parked there. The car was not marked as a camera car and the operator did not make themselves known (entrapment?). The parking notice says that the vehicle was parked there, when in fact the driver was in the car the whole time and had not technically parked as my understanding is that you are parked when you are within a certain distance of a kerb. There were no markings on the floor to indicate any parking spaces, so the driver was only stationery in the middle of the land while deciding what to do next.

Should I ignore or should I fight this? Redacted images of the notice are below:





This post has been edited by goku: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 17:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 11:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 12:24
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



The are extremely litigious so this will only be resolved in court.

They won't accept any of your points and will reject any appeal.

On private land there are no such regulations about being near a kerb. It's not entrapment.

Pictures of the signs would be more useful.


--------------------
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
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 12:35
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Parking has no such definition even on public land. Being parked MORE THAN 50cm from the kerb is an issue on Highways, but notice you are still *parked*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goku
post Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 19:36
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



Thanks for the responses guys.

The signage said that cars displaying a permit can stay there, but the two cars that were there (1 which contained the cameraperson) had no permits displayed whatsoever. I did not enter into any contract or agreement with the landowner or parking management company when I was driving.

In terms of technicalities, I didn't leave my car, and it is not clearly marked on the road that you have left the public highway and have entered private land; there are no barriers either. If they had a problem with someone even driving onto their forecourt, they shouldn't have made it so easy (as you can see on the links provided). In my simplistic mind, it's like having a front garden which is concreted like the footpath, and then kicking up a stink when people walk through.

In terms of legalities, there is no indication of there being any video evidence of the allegation. The pictures just show a couple of stills of my car in different positions which indicates that I was moving around. There is no indication on the letter that my car was observed between two time periods and a picture to evidence said time period to prove that I was parked. The pictures could just as well have been taken of a car driving through and they could issue a charge notice without there being any real proof that the car was parked - how would the courts see this?

I will try to snap some pictures of the signage and post them on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 21:18
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



In the meantime edit your post and remove anything that may identify who drove the vehicle.

Refer only to " the driver" did this or that, all posts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goku
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 17:06
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



As I mentioned earlier, there was no parking that took place. The driver drove in, tried to read the signs, drove around to get a better look. As per the per the instructions on the signage, as the driver was unsure, the driver refrained from parking there (as specified just above the phone numbers in the sign).

As promised, images below:

Entrance:


Sign next to entrance:


Inside facing NW:


Signpost as seen inside facing NW:


Closeup of sign above:


Exit:


From exit facing SE:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goku
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 18:00
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



There was:

1. No parking that took place
2. No notice put on a windshield due to the vehicle being stationery
3. No mention on the notice of a time period that the vehicle was observed between
4. no hint of video evidence

Should I challenge based on the above?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 18:35
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 13:24) *
They won't accept any of your points and will reject any appeal.



--------------------
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
ostell
post Sat, 17 Aug 2019 - 19:01
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The sign is prohibiting in that only permit holders allowed and there is no offer of a contract to non permit holder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goku
post Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 15:52
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



But there was no parking that took place. The vehicle entered, and without parking, the vehicle exited. If they cannot produce any evidence that the vehicle was observed between two time periods, surely that should be sufficient to challenge this?

@jlc - I saw your point, but what's to stop them trying to fine an innocent driver who took a wrong turn and just happened to drive through their area (which is what I am arguing here)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 16:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (goku @ Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 16:52) *
@jlc - I saw your point, but what's to stop them trying to fine an innocent driver who took a wrong turn and just happened to drive through their area (which is what I am arguing here)?

Nothing! But you said you were there for 10-15 minutes?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 16:59


--------------------
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
goku
post Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 10:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 17:58) *
QUOTE (goku @ Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 16:52) *
@jlc - I saw your point, but what's to stop them trying to fine an innocent driver who took a wrong turn and just happened to drive through their area (which is what I am arguing here)?

Nothing! But you said you were there for 10-15 minutes?


As a wise man once said: "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove", would the onus not be on them to bring forth evidence to say the vehicle was parked there or waiting there? All their pictures show is the car in one position, and then another, which tells that they were snapping the car in motion. Plus, there was no ticket on the windshield.

They hold the case for 14 days once an appeal is received, should I not try?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 10:27
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Of course you appeal, but do so on the understanding it WILL be rejected, why should they accept it?

They have to prove any claim on balance of probabilities in court, you appeal to put your case on record and to put them on notice that you know how to defend making a court claim less likely.

The 14 days is therefor meaningless!


--------------------
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
ManxRed
post Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 11:07
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



What we're saying is, although they have little to no case, they reject all appeals regardless. That's their business model, they don't make much money otherwise.

Money's all they're interested in, they couldn't give a stuff about managing car parks.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goku
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 14:21
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



The charge notice states that they have obtained the registered keeper’s details under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Paragraph 7 (4) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states the following:
“(4)The notice must be given—
(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)while the vehicle is stationary,
by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted

As the notice was not handed to the driver of the vehicle, would this not be enough to argue that the registers keeper’s details were obtained without any legal basis as that the charge will not stand up in court? Would it be worth having the ICO look at this?

This post has been edited by goku: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 14:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 17:45
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Apologies, I cannot see any of the images you've posted of the tickets, as you've used a site which is not looked upon favourably by my work internet police.

Was the ticket received in the post sometime after the event? This would be a Notice to Keeper, not a Notice to Driver placed on the windscreen?

In which case, Paragraph 7 doesn't apply.

However, in the event that they have claimed that a windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle then you may have a point.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goku
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 03:07
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 21 May 2016
Member No.: 84,486



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Sun, 8 Sep 2019 - 18:45) *
Apologies, I cannot see any of the images you've posted of the tickets, as you've used a site which is not looked upon favourably by my work internet police.

Was the ticket received in the post sometime after the event? This would be a Notice to Keeper, not a Notice to Driver placed on the windscreen?

In which case, Paragraph 7 doesn't apply.

However, in the event that they have claimed that a windscreen ticket was left on the vehicle then you may have a point.


The ticket was received in the post sometime after the event. It did not make mention of a notice being applied to windshield. I’ll have to read the schedule again but from my reading of it the first time around, it looked like the keeper’s information was not obtained in accordance with the schedule as the relevant conditions had not been met.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 07:44
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



It's like an ANPR ticket - paragraphs 8/9 apply.


--------------------
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
LBoogie1
post Wed, 14 Oct 2020 - 13:13
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Oct 2020
Member No.: 110,121



QUOTE (goku @ Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 12:33) *
Location: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B03...#33;4d0.0451175

GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B03...#33;4d0.0451175

The driver pulled into Redbridge station on Friday 2nd August. The driver first entered the official station car park, but thought it best to not stay there to avoid any tickets. The driver then entered the land in question which was in the same area (i.e. the vicinity of the station). While entering the land, the driver noticed a sign stating that it was private land. The driver stayed in the car and tried to read one of the signs but couldn't make out the wording. The driver then turned around and drove to another sign and was able to see that it said no waiting or parking. The driver looked around and couldn't see any cameras. The driver tried to look up some information on this car park on the phone. During this time, the driver's passenger jumped into the car and the driver drove off (must have been there about 10-15 minutes). Signage pics in a post further below.

I received a Parking Charge Notice which shows pictures being taken from one of the cars that was parked there. The car was not marked as a camera car and the operator did not make themselves known (entrapment?). The parking notice says that the vehicle was parked there, when in fact the driver was in the car the whole time and had not technically parked as my understanding is that you are parked when you are within a certain distance of a kerb. There were no markings on the floor to indicate any parking spaces, so the driver was only stationery in the middle of the land while deciding what to do next.

Should I ignore or should I fight this? Redacted images of the notice are below:






I received the same PCN from PCM!! Any luck? The signage is terrible!
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
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, 29th March 2024 - 10:12
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here