Civil Enforcment ANPR camera PCN |
Civil Enforcment ANPR camera PCN |
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 19:11
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,018 |
I received a pcn which was issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd, by one of these ANPR cameras at a private car park. Can someone offer some advice as to wether i will be wasting my time or not by trying to challenge this, and if I have misunderstood any of the following.
From what I’ve read, no notice to driver (NTD) is issued but rather a notice to keeper (NTK), because it is an ANPR camera and not a patrol dude. However I only received a PCN which you can see Here and not a NTK. Is this right? They can’t know who the driver was as it’s not clear even what gender the driver was from the pictures. It’s just a very blurry skin coloured blob to be honest. Anyway if I’m assuming this PCN also counts as a NTK. Under the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) of 2012 a change in law was made to introduce Keeper Liability for parking charges on private land. Under Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA states the necessary information for a NTK to be valid. One of these pieces of information is to ask the keeper to pay the fine or to give the name and address of the driver. Also they must say who is liable for the fine but on the pcn it states “...we therefore require payment of this parking charge notice...” and doesn’t say me or the driver is liable for the charge. I’m not sure how I should tackle this one really. This post has been edited by BlueFoot222: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:18 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 19:11
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 19:37
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
From what we can see it appears to be a non-PoFA compliant PCN. (So they can only pursue the driver)
Is there more on the reverse? (CEL NTK's are generally pants) -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 19:42
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Does it include the information required by Para 9 ?
First step is always to appeal as the keeper on the grounds of failure to comply with POFA and inadequate signs |
|
|
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:05
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred.
Yes they have to comply with all the requirements of POFA paragraph 9 to be able to transfer liability to the keeper. If you note 9 (2) starts with "must". |
|
|
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:16
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,018 |
From what we can see it appears to be a non-PoFA compliant PCN. (So they can only pursue the driver) Is there more on the reverse? (CEL NTK's are generally pants) Here is a Picture from what is on the back? So do I just ignore this letter then seeing as they can’t pursue me as the vehicle owner they can only Pursue the driver. Which nobody knows who they are. I don’t know what I should do next should I email them or ignore the letter. |
|
|
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 21:29
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
They seem to have the required phrases on the bac
|
|
|
Wed, 22 May 2019 - 23:50
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 18 May 2019 Member No.: 103,930 |
The layout is pretty pants, with some of the wording tucked away in the paragraph that begins ‘if you are a vehicle hire company’, but it does all seem to be there (although I dont think the word ‘keeper’ is ever mentioned).
The contravention is ‘Permit Holders Only’ so what exactly did the signage say? If there was no offer of parking then there could be an argument that it was trespass only. Was there something preventing the driver from obtaining a Permit, or was it simply that the signage was so poor they weren’t aware of the requirement for one? |
|
|
Thu, 23 May 2019 - 07:28
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
What sort of a car park is it because CEL also issues Notices for "No Permit" when the driver is a customer of a pub or hotel and hasn't recorded his vehicle on a hidden keypad ?
|
|
|
Thu, 23 May 2019 - 08:25
Post
#9
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,018 |
What sort of a car park is it because CEL also issues Notices for "No Permit" when the driver is a customer of a pub or hotel and hasn't recorded his vehicle on a hidden keypad ? The signage said parking for takeaway customers only and to receive a permit inside. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:10 |