PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Control Management PCM, driver stopped for 1 min on private road, E11 Leytonstone
WapChimney
post Wed, 24 May 2017 - 23:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that was photographed stopped on a private section of Joseph Ray Road, Leytonstone, E11. I have received a Parking Charge from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM).

I believe the vehicle was stopped for no more than 60 seconds, before it was then driven away. The photograph was taken during this 1 minute by a man lurking at one end of the road, dressed in casual clothing.

Attached is the letter I received.

Any advice on best course of action would be appreciated. Thanks. smile.gif

This post has been edited by WapChimney: Fri, 26 May 2017 - 23:25
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 128)
Advertisement
post Wed, 24 May 2017 - 23:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 2 May 2018 - 08:51
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,232
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Costs should have followed here, they still took a claim to court that had no real prospect of success - the costs of the hearing should be theirs to bear. BUt we live and learn on that!

Congratulations in general, and thanks for the thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 2 May 2018 - 09:04
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,645
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Good news! Will it stop them issuing claims under similar circumstances? I think we know the answer to that.


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

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
Umkomaas
post Wed, 2 May 2018 - 09:31
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,666
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
Anyway, a massive thank you to everyone who helped me on this all along the way, especially: nosferatu1001, emanresu, churchmouse, jlc, ostell, redivi, kommando, and schoolrunmum. No way could I have done this without you all. Drinks all round

With that many, it would have been cheaper to pay the PCN! laugh.gif

Well done, great win.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brazilianx
post Sun, 6 May 2018 - 08:38
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Member No.: 34,060



Please tell me if I should start a new topic, but our situation is closely related to the discussions in this thread and thought I'd start here.

Its a ticket from PCM, the same alleged PCN infringement, albeit at the notorious High Point Village.

Firstly well done WapChimney for taking it all the way and winning! It gives me hope. biggrin.gif

I am at the stage that my initial appeal to PCM has been rejected. I used the same arguments as WapChimney and dwelt on the fact that there was not a reasonable amount of time to review the contract. Here is the response from PCM:
Attached Image


A couple of specific points based on the letter that I'd appreciate some advice on.

Firstly, I logged the appeal to PCM as the Registered Keeper, admitting no liability, specifically not naming the driver. Yet the letter states
QUOTE
'You parked in a manner...'
which is factually incorrect. They are trying to pin me as the driver, right? Is it too late to state who the actual driver was - who was a friend visiting from out the country?

Second, they state
QUOTE
"the photographs make it clear the driver made no attempt to consider the terms; therefore, they are deemed to have notice of them"


How can they say this with any validity? The driver was looking at the sign from within the car. The photographs simply cannot see inside the car to disprove this. The driver could not read the sign when parked adjacent to it, so had to move forward in order to get a good angle of the sign, hence allegedly being outside the marked bays. They also state
QUOTE
it is agreed that the signs cannot be read from the vehicle
, but the driver contends that the signs could be read from within the vehicle.

So what next? Appeal to the perverse IAS? Any advice or pointers on the response?

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 6 May 2018 - 09:04
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,659
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Yes

Please start your own thread

My understanding is that you can't appeal to the IAS unless you admit you were the driver although a very highly respected member says otherwise

I would inform PCM of the driver's details and mention in your message that The Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't require that the address is in the UK
I drafted an appropriate message in another thread

Then file and ignore everything short of a Letter Before Claim

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sun, 6 May 2018 - 09:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brazilianx
post Sun, 6 May 2018 - 09:17
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Member No.: 34,060



Thanks - New thread created

New Topic

This post has been edited by brazilianx: Sun, 6 May 2018 - 09:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brazilianx
post Sun, 6 May 2018 - 09:35
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Member No.: 34,060



QUOTE (WapChimney @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 00:11) *
Well the good news is, I won, although without any costs.


Congrats! I'd love to use your win as ammunition against my current appeal to PCM for a similar infringement. How can one find out more about the actual case in order to use it in a response? Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WapChimney
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 11:06
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,208



Not that I especially want to drag this out any further, but I'm wondering if now that the judge has ruled that 60 seconds (based on their own evidence) isn't enough time to read the PCM sign in my case, is there any value in me making some sort of complaint to DVLA that PCM knowingly accessed their database against the terms of service for such access?

In the court Gladstones tried to argue that the ticket wasn't actually issued until 8 mins (I think) after the first photograph was taken, suggesting the vehicle could have been parked longer than the photographs show, but that didn't seem to wash with the judge as the ticket was posted, not fixed to the car. Just mentioning this in case it sways the above question.

I noticed on Parking Prankster's site that UKPC have been banned from accessing the DVLA database for reasons unknown, but I wonder if DVLA have started taking such issues more seriously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 11:18
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,134
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (WapChimney @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 12:06) *
Not that I especially want to drag this out any further, but I'm wondering if now that the judge has ruled that 60 seconds (based on their own evidence) isn't enough time to read the PCM sign in my case, is there any value in me making some sort of complaint to DVLA that PCM knowingly accessed their database against the terms of service for such access?

Always worth a try for the price of a stamp or email. You'l probably get a brush-off, though.

You may also consider a claim for breach of DPA for the same reasons, if you're up to giving them grief for the price of an MCOL claim (though start with an LBC).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
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: Wednesday, 22nd August 2018 - 05:50
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.