PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Coventry Central Six Retail Park Overstay Charge
rsg444
post Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 18:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



Hi all,

The RK has received a PCN for overstaying at Central Six Retail Park in Coventry. One of the vehicle occupants is a Blue Badge holder and I am told as a result of this there was a wait for a blue badge bay to become available, on top of this, the mobility of the occupant is such that it takes them a long time to get around - this is now the second time they've been issued a PCN under these circumstances (but not at the same site). The vehicle occupants also asked a retailer staff member about the parking restrictions and was told that due to roadworks, they're not being applied.

The PCN has an issue date of 18th Nov but was only received by post by the RK on 2nd December which meant the 14 day discount period was already expired.

Are there any grounds for appeal aside from the Equalities Act which, from the RK's previous experience blue badge holders and Equalities Act just gets ignored?

The PCN is below:





This post has been edited by rsg444: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 18:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 26)
Advertisement
post Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 18:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
rsg444
post Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 15:12
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



I'm getting subtle hints that I might lose if I appeal. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 15:13
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



QUOTE (rsg444 @ Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 15:12) *
I'm getting subtle hints that I might lose if I appeal. laugh.gif

A wise observation. We generally don't advise appealing to the IAS - not because your appeal is without merit but because, unlike POPLA, the IAS is pretty much a kangaroo court where you have little chance of success.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 15:39
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



From latest reports:

In favour of motorists - POPLA 41%, IAS 25%

rolleyes.gif


--------------------
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
rsg444
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 11:13
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



Hi all, I wanted to give you an update.

To summarise:

Vehicle was in the car park for just over 3 hours. However the parking signs had the time limit and charge amount covered with masking tape - the two signs that were checked were like this. An enquiry was made with staff who work at the retail park who said parking was not currently being enforced.

Nonetheless, a parking charge was sent to the RK stating max stay of a 180 mins according to them had been breached and £100 was due. When the RK appealed and sent pictures of the signs, the appeal was rejected as the evidence was apparently "irrelevant".

RK did not follow advice on here and so appealed with IAS. IAS guidelines state that parking operator has 5 working days to submit their case in answer to RK's appeal else the appeal is auto granted. Despite this, IAS had a 2 week timer. About 5 mins before the timer reached 0, G24 responded claiming contract had been formed and that appellant's points were "irrelevant".

Anyway, today IAS have allowed the RK's appeal and so PCN has been cancelled.

Thanks all for your help.

Enquiries have been made with ICO as to whether G24 have unlawfully processed RK's personal data. My personal view is that parking was not being enforced, cameras and automated systems had probably been left on and G24 might have been trying their luck to get some money out of unsuspecting RK's/Drivers. But if they have covered up their signs, what legal basis to they have to request data from DVLA?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 11:35
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



Good result, the IAS do have their uses every so often laugh.gif can you show us G24's IAS response, and the assessor's decision? Could help us advise others in future.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rsg444
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 11:39
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



From G24:

"This is not a relevant consideration as the motorist entered into a contract with G24 Ltd, so have agreed to pay.

The signs advertising the terms and conditions of the car park are compliant with our Approved Operator Scheme and displayed in prominent locations throughout the car park.

The motorist entered into a contract with G24 Ltd to park within the permitted free parking of 180 minutes and the motorist parking period was for 196 minutes therefore the CPCN still applies.

It is for the above reasons that the appeal was rejected."


From IAS:

"While noting the Operator's prima facie case, they fail to deal with the issues raised by the Appellant in relation to the signage on site.

On the evidence presented to this appeal I cannot be satisfied that the Operator has been able to show that the charge was properly issued in all the circumstances and accordingly I must allow this appeal."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 20 Jan 2022 - 11:46
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Golden rule number 1 - if you don't challenge something then it's regarded as 'accepted'.


--------------------
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

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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, 28th March 2024 - 09:56
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