PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Park Watch PCN for 'bus only interchange'
luxury fruit
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 22 May 2018
Member No.: 98,063



Hi all,

I recently received this letter on 12/07/2018 through the post regarding a PCN for an incident that occured on 08/07/2018 at One Stop Shopping centre in Birmingham. The letter references schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and also mentions that the driver is bound to the 'clearly set out signage' and liable to pay if they breach these terms and conditions.

Please advise on what course of action I should take Pepipoo?

See letter: https://imgur.com/a/Xb4cgWV (Attachment system wasn't working)

This post has been edited by luxury fruit: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 20:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:59
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You've left the PCN number in the first paragraph of your picture

I've dealt with this location before

Check with the Land Registry and the Council because I think that's a public road and outside the area that Park Watch is contracted to enforce

Even if it's not, Park Watch is telling porkies about the Protection of Freedoms Act allowing them to recover payment from the registered keeper
It only applies to vehicles that are parked

By definition, a car that is still moving hasn't parked
Neither can a driver contract to do something that's forbidden

He is at worst trespassing
Damages for trespass are limited to the actual damage (or benefit gained by the driver)
They are also owed to the land-owner not Park Watch

Got to go out in a minute but can pick this up again tomorrow
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 18:08
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Hmmm, interesting - the chances of reading those signs is next to none! Here.

But visible signage is that covered by the appropriate road traffic acts, i.e. the no entry signs.

I'd be intrigued what the council has to say about the location...


--------------------
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
The Slithy Tove
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 07:37
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



POFA cannot possibly apply as there was no parking! To call it a parking charge is falsehood number one. In fact, you should raise a complaint to the DVLA as I bet ParkWatch ONLY have permission to use the keeper's data for parking events. Hit both ParkWatch and DVLA (as data controller) with a GDPR breach. Other parking companies have got into trouble for attempting to enforce what would (on public roads) be a moving traffic offence.

This post has been edited by The Slithy Tove: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 07:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:06
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I woudl first ask the DVLA to release the info on the data request, including the reason given for the request

If it states moving traffic then ask why they are releasing this info to a parkign firm, and where there stated review of requests has failed.
If it states parking, then you have evidence of fraud.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:37) *
Hit both ParkWatch and DVLA (as data controller) with a DPA 2018 breach.

FTFY.

However I think there is an issue here, while it is a breach of the KADOE contract ( https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...Contract_V4.pdf ) I don't think its a breach of the DPA as the reasonable cause requirement for DVLA to provide data isn't governed by KADOE.

A complaint of the DVLA over the breach of KADOE I do think has wings.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:29
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I would first get the reason given - that takes usually less than one week
You can then throw back at the DVLA why theyre releasing info outside of the reasons given
They had no reasonable cause to use the electronic link.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:24
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



They shouldn't have used the e-link I agree, that's a breach of KADOE, but they have reasonable cause to obtain the data so a DPA issue is a non starter in my opinion.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
luxury fruit
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:46
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 22 May 2018
Member No.: 98,063



Sorry I should have mentioned; the car was stopped momentarily where you can see in the second picture, however I'm not sure if parking really applies in this case as some of you have brought up, as the driver of the vehicle never left the car - it was still running and remained stationary for all of about 20 seconds. Also the stop signs were visible but it was unclear as to which lane they were for, and the 'except for buses' sign was twisted round and not visible to drivers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 15:16
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



But the vehicle hadn't passed any signs when it stopped
At the time of the picture, it was still in the yellow box

I wish I could easily lay my hands on the files for the case I dealt with that concerned parking around the edge of the yellow box

The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the box is under council control and Park Watch justified the demands because the driver breached the yellow box rules and they may as well enforce them instead of the council
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 15:25
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 16:16) *
But the vehicle hadn't passed any signs when it stopped
At the time of the picture, it was still in the yellow box

The second shot (under the first) shows the OP's car past the signs...


--------------------
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
ostell
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 15:40
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Arguments about stopping etc are irrelevant, the alleged breach was "Entering a No access Area". POFA is for parking, that car was never parked and therefore there can be no use of POFA for keeper liability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
luxury fruit
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 18:04
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 22 May 2018
Member No.: 98,063



Thanks for all your input.

So from what I can understand, I should contact DVLA asking for the reason as to why the information was requested/released to Park Watch and then depending on their reply, remind them that POFA only applies here to parked cars, whereas the reason they have given the PCN for is for entering a no access area. Is this correct? Also how would I go about contacting DVLA about this, and how would I structure the letter - i.e. is there anything I should be wary of to prevent incurring any liability?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 19:47
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (luxury fruit @ Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 19:04) *
Is this correct?

No, it is not.

Your appeal is quite separate (for now) from the DVLA route. POFA does not apply no matter what the DVLA say, as you were not parked - full stop. You have been pointed to how to appeal in your parallel thread on MSE. Use that, stressing the point about no keeper liability (as they seem to think it applies).

The DVLA route is a separate enquiry that you pursue if you feel like stirring it up and causing trouble. Plenty of examples around of the 2-line enquiry you need to send, and who to send it to. Just search.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
luxury fruit
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 14:39
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 22 May 2018
Member No.: 98,063



Hi

An update for you all. After sending Park Watch the appeal template posted on MSE as advised, I just received a reply saying the address I gave at the bottom of the email does not match with the address the DVLA gave Park Watch. They are now asking for proof of address. After checking this myself, my driving license is at the correct address, whilst on the V5C my car is registered to my brother's address which is where I sometimes stay periodically. I should also point out that in the email I requested all further correspondence by post only: 'Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.'

I'm not sure if that has any bearing on the issue but please advise Pepipoo, should I go down the route of changing my address on the V5 and responding or is it too late for that? Alternatively, I have documents showing my address at both locations, so can this be used in anyway to help the situation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 14:50
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You could send a copy of a utility bill and tell ParkWatch that the legislation only requires that the address is one at which you can be reached
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 18:47
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (luxury fruit @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 15:39) *
I just received a reply saying the address I gave at the bottom of the email does not match with the address the DVLA gave Park Watch. They are now asking for proof of address. After checking this myself, my driving license is at the correct address, whilst on the V5C my car is registered to my brother's address

Does that mean that when in your first post you said that you recently received a letter, was it actually sent to your brother's address, i.e. the address on the V5C? The address on your driving license is irrelevant.

As for proving your address, tell them to sod off. You are simply providing them an address for service, as keeper of the vehicle when the ticket was issued. You don't need to prove anything. Sounds like they are fishing for more information than you need to give them.

This post has been edited by The Slithy Tove: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 19:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 19:03
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



+1


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
luxury fruit
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 16:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 22 May 2018
Member No.: 98,063



QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 19:47) *
QUOTE (luxury fruit @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 15:39) *
I just received a reply saying the address I gave at the bottom of the email does not match with the address the DVLA gave Park Watch. They are now asking for proof of address. After checking this myself, my driving license is at the correct address, whilst on the V5C my car is registered to my brother's address

Does that mean that when in your first post you said that you recently received a letter, was it actually sent to your brother's address, i.e. the address on the V5C? The address on your driving license is irrelevant.


Yes, this letter came to my brother's house. For the sake of clarity, when I say my brother's house, whilst I would say my primary residence is at my parents' house, I move between either house regularly; the two houses are practically next door to each other.

So should I bother with sending any proof of address? Or would they be able to contact the DVLA about the discrepancy between addresses? I actually think my drivers' licence is the odd one out here, as most of my other correspondences, including my name on the electoral register, are all at my brother's address.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 10:35
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



What discrepancy?
Noting requires the address for service to be the v5 address. You've been told this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 16:49
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