Llawnroc NtK |
Llawnroc NtK |
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 08:51
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
Hi all, first post here after finding this forum and reading the excellent advice.
I've received my first NtK for a PCN from Llawnroc parking services. The situation that occured was the driver went to a local leisure centre, The Seahorse, and paid for parking for 2hrs. The parking charge is then redeemed and deducted from the leisure centre entry cost. The driver went swimming with 2 children for a birthday event and was late back to the car by 40mins. Ticket left on the windscreen. After reading around here, this was ignored. An email was sent to the leisure centre manager asking them to cancel the charge, but they declined. They did say:- 'Unfortunately, Llawnroc Parking run our car park and are solely responsible for the machines and ticketing so I am unable to get your charge dropped. The idea behind redeeming tickets is ensuring that our customers effectively get free parking and the car park isn’t full with beach users in season and dog walkers off season.' and 'We can certainly offer our word to assist in an appeal with Llawnroc, however as they run the car park the final decision on parking matters is ultimately theirs so I cannot simply get a parking charge dropped. I could by all means support your case, however unfortunately in your situation they will say to me that as you overstayed by 40 minutes there is no case for appeal. Llawnroc give all our customers approximately 10 minutes leeway to avoid unnecessary penalties, regrettably we are unable to offer you any further assistance on this occasion. ' This was left until the NtK has arrived last week. Llawnroc are now IPC members. I'm now wondering what my next steps are. I've emailed the DVLA already and am still waiting for a reply regarding my detail access for PoFA. I've taken photos of the car park, and the NtD and NtK, which are as below:- The car park as you drive in is shown as below. There is not a single sign showing it's pay and display as you enter the car park, the only sign you may see, depending on where you park, is next to the leisure centre entrance next to the pay machine. And this is the entrance/pay machine and signs:- From these pics and NtK/D, I cant really see anything wrong/missing from them unless a better training eye than mine can (v v new to this so hopefully that's the case!). So I'm guessing my best hope for appeal is for inadequate signage? But then there is a sign right next to the leisure centre entrance and pay machine, so would that argument still hold? What other arguments would be of use here, is there anything the leisure centre manager said which could be crucial? The back of the NtK says I have 21days to appeal to Llawnroc, then if that is lost I can appeal to the IPC. Any advice on next steps would be great. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 08:51
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 09:00
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
When did you receive the NtK? (exactly)
As 28 October is a Saturday - if they used 1st class then the assumed delivered would be 1 November. (Which is extremely close to the 56 day requirement) The signs say £100 and the PCN is for £90? This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 09:00 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 09:06
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
Hi, yes that's right, the NtK arrived on Weds 1st. Very close to the deadline which i was hoping would pass, but I believe the NtK was delivered in time. Also yes there is a discepancy between the letter and the signs fine amounts. Significant?
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 10:00
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
The core term of that sign (£100 charge) seems to be extremely small, and in my opinion would fail Beavis.
-------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 11:51
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Hi, yes that's right, the NtK arrived on Weds 1st. Very close to the deadline which i was hoping would pass, but I believe the NtK was delivered in time. Also yes there is a discepancy between the letter and the signs fine amounts. Significant? Yup, has arrived just in time... Yes, the discrepancy is debatable - but does appear to fall foul of 'certainty and enforceability'. POPLA have previously upheld appeals on this basis but I'm not so sure the IAS would. After all it's a 'discount' and should be applauded or thanks for pointing this out, the charge is now £100... I think it's worth an appeal as the keeper pointing out the uncertainty and the hidden core term. (Uncertainty works better if there were different amounts on the signs) This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 - 13:57 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 08:32
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
Thanks for the replies. Who would you appeal to, direct to the PPC or IAS?
I downloaded and looked through the IPC Code of Practice and looked at the signage section. Looks like there isnt enough signs and not a single sign on entry or visible in some parking spaces until you literally walk into the Seahorse entrance next to the pay machine. I'm guessing that looks like the best course of appeal? Would the leisure centre managers comments etc have any effect/benefit on an appeal and the fact they would support it? I'm guessing not for the IPC/IAS, but may do if i appeal directly to the PPC? This post has been edited by pudding: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 08:47 |
|
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 08:39
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
You can't appeal to the IAS until you have appealed to the PPC. But then the recommendation is do not appeal to the IAS as it will be rejected. It's far from independent and is run by the solicitors that run the IPC and their legal side.
|
|
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 18:42
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Tell you what though, this one might be worth throwing at the IAS if we word it well.
The driver did not agree to pay £90 or £100 (only the fee tariff at the machine) because the signage is so sparse and neither £90 nor £100 was known or agreed to at all. However, on inspecting the altered sign hidden in the corner, point #1 contradicts the phrase on the right completely (is there any free parking or not?) but more specifically, there are no contractual terms giving rise to a £90 charge because the company has stuck a sticker over whatever was there before and are trying to charge £100. But they seem to have forgotten that! Don't say who was driving in the appeals. State also that it is a condition of Schedule 4 that there must be 'adequate notice' of the parking charge which must be 'repeated' from the PCN to the NTK - well that's not the case, there is NO adequate notice of a £90 'charge' anywhere. Keeper can't be held liable; the sign is crudely altered with stickers and has contradicting terms and tiny writing - but nothing about £90 at all - a prima facie case! This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 18:43 |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 17:02
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
So what the best course of action?
Appeal to the PPC first of all, stating that :- signage was inadequate and not in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice due to sparsity and the main charge of £100/£90 was not evident nor agreed to? the sign in contracdictary in that it states free parking during certain hours, but condition 1 states payment required at all times? there is no contractual term on the signs agreed to that gives rise to the £90 charge being demanded due to the crude sticker over the charge amount? What is the condition of Schedule 4 that is not evident between the PCN and NtK you mention that is not repeated? The £90 charge? Should I bother or is it worth saying anything about he managers comments and the fact they want their customers, which the driver was, to get free parking. And then when that appeal probably fails, appeal to the IAS? Thanks again. |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 21:52
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
QUOTE What is the condition of Schedule 4 that is not evident between the PCN and NtK you mention that is not repeated? The £90 charge? Yes.But I think I would just quote this at them from Sch4 and state you will take this to IAS and they will be unable to make any 'prima facie' case that the signs meet the requirements for adequate notice of a contractually 'agreed' charge of £90, since £90 does not appear on any signs (attach a couple of photos at this stage). Add that the location appears long overdue an IPC audit!! : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted QUOTE (2)The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land). (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by— (a)the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b)where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which— (i)specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. QUOTE Should I bother or is it worth saying anything about he managers comments and the fact they want their customers, which the driver was, to get free parking. No, therein lies danger. People who start writing from the heart can accidentally imply who parked (best avoided and words like that are not needed).
This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:41 |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 22:43
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
Ah, schedule 4 of PofA, sorry i was looking at Sched 4 of the IPC Code of Practice, no wonder it didnt really make sense! Thanks, will take a look at that.
|
|
|
Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 19:46
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
How's this for an appeal? Alot was taken from MSE template.
Dear Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd. Re PCN number: xxxxxx I am the keeper of the vehicle and am aware of your purported 'parking charge'. The driver will not be identified. I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:- 1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner? 2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no. 3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver. 4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle. 5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines. Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data. The driver did not agree to pay £90 or £100 (only the fee tariff at the pay machine) because the signage is so sparse and the parking charge of £90 nor £100 was known or agreed to at all. On inspection of the few parking signs found, point #1 contradicts the note on the right hand side completely and is confusing, (is payment required at all times 7 days/week, or is there a period of free parking available?), but more specifically and crucially, there is no contractual term giving rise to a £90 charge. There is however a small crude sticker over whatever was there before trying to charge £100. The following is taken from Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (2)The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land). (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by— (a)the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b)where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which— (i)specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. This states that there must be ‘adequate notice’ of the parking charge which must be ‘repeated’ from the Parking Notice Charge to the Notice to Keeper. This has not occurred and there is NO adequate notice of the £90 charge you are demanding anywhere. Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice also sets out the requirements of signage and these signs evident would surely fail any audit and are insufficient. Photos at the end of this document show the inadequacy and complete lack of signage on entrance to the car park and lack of signs throughout the whole car park. The only sign visible from most car parking spaces is on leaving the car park and entering the Seahorse, and is shown in the last photo. The registered keeper can’t be held liable, the only signage is crudely altered with stickers, has contradictory terms and tiny writing, with no mention of a £90 charge at all, hence adequate notice as required from Schedule 4 is not provided. Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully, |
|
|
Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:44
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Get rid of this bit, not relevant really in your case:
QUOTE Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. Add that the location appears long overdue an IPC audit, and that you will be happy for the IAS to see your evidence of the altered signs where none of them have anything about any £90 charge. |
|
|
Sat, 25 Nov 2017 - 14:08
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
So, i received a reply this week from Llawnroc after sending in my letter. No surprises really with the reply, which is as below with the photos of my car they have, and lastly a random photo of the parking sign with the £100 sticker removed showing the original £90 charge, but no idea which one and where this sign is located. The letter appeal was posted on Sat 18th Special recorded delivery. Email sent with same letter attached on Tuesday 21st, within the 21 days after the NtK was received. The letter they replied with was dated 21st, so im not sure why they are saying my appeal is outside the 21days and they are not allowing it, yet then going on to reply to everything!?
I've grabbed an aerial view of this car park and created the following which shows the route the car and driver took, and relevant signs. It shows the driver did not drive past any sign stating the T&C's, and first encounter with one is next to the pay and display machine. Does Llawnroc have enough evidence to show a valid contract has been formed and the signage is adequate? They dont appear to have demonstrated that the drvier agreed to pay £90 charge by agreeing to any contract and T&C's shown in any sign to me? What do the experts on here think? Any suggested actions from here? Appeal to IPC/IAS or just ignore? This post has been edited by pudding: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 - 14:14 |
|
|
Sat, 25 Nov 2017 - 15:39
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Like I said before, this one is IAS-worthy.
A rare one. Make sure your photos of the signs show the date/time embedded on them or the IAS will believe the PPC's pic. Let's see what you plan to say, don't copy a long POPLA template. Write it how it is, in your own words, showing there is no case and was no contract formed to pay £90. |
|
|
Sat, 25 Nov 2017 - 16:35
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
Hmm, how to get the photos to show the embedded time? Do i need to return to the car park for more pics and edit my phone camera settings?
Edit - dont worry, just downloaded Faststone image viewer and it has added all the exif date/time to the photos! Second edit - any suggestions for a template for the IAS appeal letter? This post has been edited by pudding: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 - 16:49 |
|
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 09:30
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
Quick question. Do i need to be concerned or worry about the first para in Llawnroc reply, regarding them claiming I havent followed their internal appeals process and appealed with 21 days, hence they wont engage with the IAS?
I believe I have replied and appealed correctly within 21 days of the NtK as the keeper, but obviously not as the drvier within 21days of the NtD. The NtK was dated Sat 28th October. My appeal letter was dated 18th Nov and posted recoreded delivery for which I have proof of postage. On the IAS website and flow chart regarding appeals (IAS Appeals chart), half way down, one question regarding if you are allowed to appeal is 'Is the parking operator willing to take part in the IAS scheme?'. Do Llawnroc stating in their letter they wont engage with the IAS mean i can't appeal now? So basically, just to confirm, have I appealed as the keeper correctly within 21days, and do i need to be bothered by them stating they wont engage with the IAS? This post has been edited by pudding: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 09:31 |
|
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 11:44
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No. their deadlines are utterly arbitrary, and it is against the concept of justice to refuse to hear an appeal just becuase you decide it is out of some timescale you have decided upon.
They do not, under IPC rules, have to allow a keeper to appeal. Yes, this is completely stupid. YOU will NEVER appeal to the IAS, as about 5minutes of research tells you - they are a sham, crooked organisation that only allowed 17% of appellant appeals last year. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 14:35
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 10 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,019 |
So, Ive drafted an appeal for the IAS. It's as a pdf and is here :- IAS Appeal 1st draft
Any feedback would be great. |
|
|
Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 14:45
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
No. their deadlines are utterly arbitrary, and it is against the concept of justice to refuse to hear an appeal just becuase you decide it is out of some timescale you have decided upon. They do not, under IPC rules, have to allow a keeper to appeal. Yes, this is completely stupid. YOU will NEVER appeal to the IAS, as about 5minutes of research tells you - they are a sham, crooked organisation that only allowed 17% of appellant appeals last year. SRM thinks an IAS appeal is worthwhile, in accordance with her post above. She will comment on elements she thinks need to be included. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:13 |