PCM parking charge for stopping on road to unload, Station Approach, Hayes |
PCM parking charge for stopping on road to unload, Station Approach, Hayes |
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:00
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
I have just received a £60-160 fine from PCM as the registered keeper of a car. The driver stopped the car for a minute or so to let passengers disembark.
Turns out that the road had warning signs saying "Controlled Land. No stopping on this road" - the driver did not see these on the way in. Their photo evidence clearly shows passengers getting out of the car and collecting things from the boot - the doors are open, the boot is open and the indicator is on. The car was also off the main road - it was pulling in to the entrance area of a gated car park when it stopped, with 3 wheels over the giveway marking of the side road. I have searched threads on this in the past, all are quite old now (2017) and it seems the signs have changed since then. Can anyone offer fresh advice on what my best course of action is please? Photos here: https://imgur.com/a/WXytqPu The Google Street View image of the area is a few years old so does not reflect the current state of the road and signage. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:00
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:16
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Does not help that the driver parked on a hatched area!
The sign is a forbidding sign and not offering a contract to park. If there is no contract then there can be no breach and therefore no charge. To claim that there was a a contract to park when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. The charge is a penalty which is not allowed. The only claimant would be the landholder and then only for trespass |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:32
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
Thank you Ostell.
So is my best course of action to send the following? QUOTE Dear PCM, As registered keeper of the vehicle (VRM: XXX), I would like to make the following observations: 1) There was no contract between driver and PCM in place at the time and date of the alleged offence. The sign you reference is a forbidding sign - it is not one that offers a contract to park. 2) According to your photographic evidence, the car was stationary for 30 seconds, this is not enough time to read the signage which was not clearly displayed. 3) The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. 4) The driver saw no clear signage in the place where they were parked for 30 seconds informing them that stopping is prohibited. The requirements are that clear signage must be erected. 5) The photograph of the "Controlled Land" sign you have submitted as your evidence appears to be parallel to the road - it is therefore not possible for a driver to read the sign as they enter the road. 6) Having examined your parking charge notice I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment for the following reasons: a) Your notice refers to a “contravention” which is misleading for implying it to have been issued by a statutory authority. The term "contravention" which is usable only in penalty charge notices issued by local authorities is neither correct nor appropriate terminology for a civil parking notice. b) Your notice refers in the text to being a PCN (widely interpreted as a penalty charge notice), this term being attributed to a penalty charge notice issued by a local authority. It is therefore easily confused with a statutory penalty charge notice. The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible and while I believe the IPC will have similar standards, they are currently not accessible and return a 404 page not found error: https://theipc.info/professional-standards c) Your notice wrongly requires payment to be made “within” 28 days which is contrary to statutory requirement that provides a period of 28 days from the date of receipt. I therefore reject your allegations that the driver of this car is indebted to you. Regards, xxx. I've lifted/tweaked this from here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...s-prohibited/p3 This post has been edited by thisisntfair: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:14 |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:41
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible. They are not BPA approved operator. (They are IPC) They will reject anything you say - these are only won at court. They are litigious. This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:45 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:55
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So where is the forbidding sign argument
This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 11:55 |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:05
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible. They are not BPA approved operator. (They are IPC) They will reject anything you say - these are only won at court. They are litigious. Thanks so is there any point fighting back? Or is it better to a) just pay or b) provide the driver's address which is in a foreign country? I have updated the reference to BPA. THe IPC standards are not available - the link in their own website menu is incorrect: https://theipc.info/professional-standards This post has been edited by thisisntfair: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:15 |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:15
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
|
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:29
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:53
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
Thanks v much. So their rules are fine with the term 'PCN' being used provided it has been defined as Parking Charge Notice. By serviceable name and address - would a foreign address be considered serviceable? And can you say from your experience what is the likely outcome of providing these details - will they contact the driver at their foreign address (over 4000 miles away) or will they persist with trying to claim money form the UK-resident RK? Are there any repercussions of providing the driver's foreign address when they may have a local address? This post has been edited by thisisntfair: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 12:54 |
|
|
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 13:02
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Yes a foreign address is serviceable. POFA says nothing to the contrary.
PCM will probably complain but tough. If it gets to court the court will reject it as out of jurisdiction. Remind them that POFA 5 (1) (b) no longer applies and there can be no keeper liability. You do not expect to hear from them or any debt collectors except to confirm there will be no further action taken and your details have been removed from their records. This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 - 13:05 |
|
|
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 11:13
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
Thank you. Do you know how thorough they might be in their follow up?
i.e. will I need to prove that the named driver had insurance in place for the car at the time of the alleged contravention? and would it matter if I give the driver's overseas address instead of their UK address? |
|
|
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 11:47
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
YOU don't have to prove anything.
As long as the address is one where the driver can be contacted then it is acceptable. If you give a temporary UK address they will chase at that address, a foreign address then they will huff and puff and say it is unacceptable but POFA doesn't say it must be a UK address. |
|
|
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 11:48
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You would only have to 'prove'* anything if it got to court. On balance if you say he was driver and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the judge is pretty much certain to accept that they were.
PPC's are not in the habit of not chasing claims, they may make a lot of bluff and bluster and still write, but a court claim is very unlikely. *The concept of proof is much misunderstood, if the court believes something on a balance of probabilities then it is 'proven'. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 11:49 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 29 Sep 2020 - 12:01
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 5 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,002 |
Excellent thanks both!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:08 |