Phone line to pay not working, but appeal rejected Options

[Will_]

I parked in a PCM car park (just a patch of ground with a fence around it and a very poorly designed sign). There is no machine. I called the phone number to pay but couldn't get through. I received a letter addressed to me personally, with the words "Re: Postal Notification of Parking Charge to Keeper". The sender was "Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd".

I appealed on the grounds that I tried to pay but their phone system was not working. They replied that I should not have parked there in that case.

The rejection letter says I can use the "Independent Appeals Service" (www.theIAS.org).
Is it worth using IAS or should I start ignoring them?

Are they likely to take me to court?


Their initial letter:





The text of my appeal:

I first started using the new Belmont Road open air car park in November 2019, soon after it opened. Since then I have used it approximately 10 times and successfully paid by phone every time. I have the phone history records and confirmation text messages as evidence of this.

The most recent time I visited on XXXXXX I called the number as usual but due to what I assume is a fault with the "PaySmarti / PCM" phone system, I could not get through. I tried calling four times, and every time the connection failed. I was therefore unable to pay, as there is no physical payment machine at the location.

I am attaching my phone records as evidence.

Therefore I would request the fine is cancelled. Please could you notify me when this happens. I would like to use this paid parking facility in the future and I don't want this incident to act as a deterrent and use other alternatives. I hope to hear from you soon.

My evidence:

Successful calls in the past:


Failed calls:


Their rejection letter:





This post has been edited by Will_: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 - 14:26

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Is it worth using IAS

Nope.

Are they likely to take me to court?

Yes. They are the most litigious operator.

[Umkomaas]

PCM UK are not as litigious as their anagrammed counterpart - UK CPM, but they are still litigious .... and dangerous.

The NtK needs closer examination for PoFA purposes, but you've bleached a couple of important pieces of data. Please supply:

Date of parking incident

Date of Issue of the NtK.

[Jlc]

PCM UK are not as litigious as their anagrammed counterpart - UK CPM, but they are still litigious .... and dangerous.

You're right - got my initials muddled up.

They were only no. 5 in the 2019 litigation table.

[Will_]

PCM UK are not as litigious as their anagrammed counterpart - UK CPM, but they are still litigious .... and dangerous.

The NtK needs closer examination for PoFA purposes, but you've bleached a couple of important pieces of data. Please supply:

Date of parking incident

Date of Issue of the NtK.

Forgive me for being paranoid, but I understood these pieces of information needed to be hidden to avoid being identified.

Is there a certain time period after the incident by which the NtK needs to be sent in order to be valid?

[Jlc]

Is there a certain time period after the incident by which the NtK needs to be sent in order to be valid?

It has to arrive within 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

[ostell]

Only the date is usually required but from the date of the alleged breach , 19th July, you must have received the NTK within the 14 days as the rejection letter is dated 30th July.

Phot of the sign ?

[The Rookie]

No point looking at POFA issues and dates now, given that you gave away the driver details in the appeal.

Lack of PoFA compliance helps the keeper, it does nothing for the driver who they now know the ID of.

Not a fine, its an invoice for an alleged contractually agreed amount.

They would always reject that appeal, because they can.

[ostell]

so you need to show what the signs said.

[Umkomaas]

PCM UK are not as litigious as their anagrammed counterpart - UK CPM, but they are still litigious .... and dangerous.

You're right - got my initials muddled up.

They were only no. 5 in the 2019 litigation table.

@Jlc Do you mind sharing where you access the court data? I always used to get it via the Parking Cowboys/BMPA website, which is sadly no more. But if there's a resource in the public domain, I'd find that extremely useful.

[Jlc]

@Jlc Do you mind sharing where you access the court data? I always used to get it via the Parking Cowboys/BMPA website, which is sadly no more. But if there's a resource in the public domain, I'd find that extremely useful.

I have contact with some of those people... (Here's anyone with at least 30 hearings)

County Court Hearings for 2019 Total
UK Car Park Management 1627
ParkingEye 1564
Vehicle Control Services 1471
Civil Enforcement 992
Parking Control Management (UK) 835
Excel Parking Services 382
Britannia Parking Group 377
HX Car Park Management 358
Parking and Property Management 328
National Car Parks 308
UK Parking Control 261
Euro Parking Services 248
ES Parking Enforcement 219
Link Parking 150
Gemini Parking Solutions London 138
SIP Parking 128
Premier Parking Solutions 114
Minster Baywatch 111
KBT Cornwall 109
Pace Recovery and Storage 104
Total Parking Solutions 96
Millennium Door and Event Security 66
WY Parking Enforcement 64
One Parking Solution 63
UK Parking Patrol Office 62
Counterclaim 47
Napier Parking 47
Norwich Traffic Control 45
UKCPS 44
JD Parking Consultants 42
Private Parking Solutions (London) 40
District Enforcement 40
National Parking Enforcement 38
Horizon Parking 32
Premier Park 30

[Will_]

Is there a certain time period after the incident by which the NtK needs to be sent in order to be valid?

It has to arrive within 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Unfortunately they sent the notice within that time.

I have an old photo of the sign but it appears to be too low-res to make out all the details. I am arranging for a better photo.





The layout of the sign is appalling, but I now realise the main aim is not to inform people, it's to prevent legal challenges.

Perhaps it is a standard sign - does anyone else have a better image of this type of sign?

This post has been edited by Will_: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 - 16:00

[Umkomaas]

@Jlc Do you mind sharing where you access the court data? I always used to get it via the Parking Cowboys/BMPA website, which is sadly no more. But if there's a resource in the public domain, I'd find that extremely useful.

I have contact with some of those people... (Here's anyone with at least 30 hearings)

County Court Hearings for 2019 Total
UK Car Park Management 1627
ParkingEye 1564
Vehicle Control Services 1471
Civil Enforcement 992
Parking Control Management (UK) 835
Excel Parking Services 382
Britannia Parking Group 377
HX Car Park Management 358
Parking and Property Management 328
National Car Parks 308
UK Parking Control 261
Euro Parking Services 248
ES Parking Enforcement 219
Link Parking 150
Gemini Parking Solutions London 138
SIP Parking 128
Premier Parking Solutions 114
Minster Baywatch 111
KBT Cornwall 109
Pace Recovery and Storage 104
Total Parking Solutions 96
Millennium Door and Event Security 66
WY Parking Enforcement 64
One Parking Solution 63
UK Parking Patrol Office 62
Counterclaim 47
Napier Parking 47
Norwich Traffic Control 45
UKCPS 44
JD Parking Consultants 42
Private Parking Solutions (London) 40
District Enforcement 40
National Parking Enforcement 38
Horizon Parking 32
Premier Park 30

Thank you so much. I've copied the list for future reference. It will be very useful

[Will_]

so you need to show what the signs said.

A better picture of the sign (click for full image), the wording is now visible.

Are there any grounds for not paying this?

[Sparxy]

so you need to show what the signs said.

A better picture of the sign (click for full image), the wording is now visible.

Are there any grounds for not paying this?

Sorry, slightly off topic.

Would "All parking tariffs are subject to a £0.20 booking fee" being in a ridiculously small font (much smaller than the parking tariff) fall foul of any of the Unfair trading legislation? I know we're not purchasing goods here, but why would they not just include that fee in the parking charge? Absolutely absurd (then again, doesn't surprise me...)

"omits material information that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to make an informed decision about a transaction, hides or provides material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner"

This post has been edited by Sparxy: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 - 22:20

[Umkomaas]

so you need to show what the signs said.

A better picture of the sign (click for full image), the wording is now visible.

Are there any grounds for not paying this?

Sorry, slightly off topic.

Would "All parking tariffs are subject to a £0.20 booking fee" being in a ridiculously small font (much smaller than the parking tariff) fall foul of any of the Unfair trading legislation? I know we're not purchasing goods here, but why would they not just include that fee in the parking charge? Absolutely absurd (then again, doesn't surprise me...)

"omits material information that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to make an informed decision about a transaction, hides or provides material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner"

Many PPC signs are lacking in some way or other. But you would need to raise and pursue it via Trading Standards (but they show a marked lack of much interest in private parking issues, they'd rather be chasing fake Nike's). I'm afraid it's not going to help you with your PCN. Don't let it become a distraction.

[Will_]

Thanks for your help everyone.

I have admitted defeat and paid the £60 as I don't have the time and mental energy to continue fighting.

[Jlc]

I have admitted defeat and paid the £60 as I don't have the time and mental energy to continue fighting.

I understand - chalk it up to experience and don't make the same 'error' again. They are relentless.

[Umkomaas]

Thanks for your help everyone.

I have admitted defeat and paid the £60 as I don't have the time and mental energy to continue fighting.

PPCs win again. £60 in their coffers to fund them to harass and pursue the next victim who could be vulnerable and not have the wherewithal to just pay them off. The juggernaut rolls forward.

Pastor Martin Niemöller summed things up nicely.