Private Parking Police, PCN Hartlepool Marina |
Private Parking Police, PCN Hartlepool Marina |
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:29
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Received a PCN through the post without any ticket on car (see their attached photo - also appears to have a parking ticket in the front window). Is this a genuine (enforceable) charge or can i forget about it ?
The contravention states parked in a restricted / prohibited area, what is their criteria for this ? as the marina does not have restricted areas apart from the usual disabled bays. Any advice from all the great people on here would be appreciated. Cheers :[attachment=60716:02.pdf])[attachment=60715:01.pdf] |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:29
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 13:13
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Is this the car park?
https://goo.gl/maps/zVHAbrYEGR92 If so, can you relate it to the map at the end of this? https://www.pdports.co.uk/documents/navigat...ions/byelws.pdf -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 15:40
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Hi and thank you,
I believe it does ive marked where i believe the area (Marina) is located on the attached i have also attached the area i believe the photo references due to the writing on the floor. the marking say Navigation Taxis but does not say this is restricted to them specifically / only as i surmise they would only need taxis there specifically for the evening weekend trade to the bars ?? This post has been edited by harribops: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 15:47 |
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:06
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Dear sirs,
ref xxxx VRM xxxx I am in receipt of your above referenced invoice addressed to me, the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned. As this land is covered by the Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws, it is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a consequence of this, along with other failings, you cannot hold me liable as Registered Keeper and should make contact with the driver. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no legal obligation to name the driver and will not be so doing. Please don't attempt to rely upon either Elliott v Loake, CPS v AJH Films, Excel v Smith or any other case which you know full well do not support the assumption of the driver's identity or pass vicarious liability to a non-corporate Registered Keeper. You should also take note of your recent loss against a Registered Keeper who you tried to 'con' at Humberside Airport. I am happy to help you waste more money in that direction, should you so wish. Otherwise, I require you to confirm, within 7 days of the date of this letter, that you have cancelled the invoice and destroyed any personal details you hold on me. Your failure to comply will result in an immediate complaint to ICO and DVLA for improper use of my personal data. Love and kisses. Await the opinions of others who may wish to suggest alternative wording. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:35
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Thank you for your time and advice Cabbyman i appreciate it
As you suggest do others agree or have any additional statements to include. |
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:37
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Give them a few days to react. Not everyone is sat at a PC twiddling their thumbs on a Wednesday afternoon like you and me!!
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:49
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
lol will do
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 09:51
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
I like it
Direct |
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:16
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Yep, why not upset tthem.
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:14
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Cheers guys, as a matter of interest does this count as an appeal or just a note to inform them my disregard of their PCN and justification for such.
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:52
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Why do you think that matters one jot?
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:23
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Cheers guys, after a little digging ive found the attached which would suggest that Marina area is outwith the Port Authority ? do i have any other alternatives ?
Cheers |
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:32
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Go with the not relevant land anyway, see if they show otherwise. Also add that the NTK is not POFA compliant (9 (2) (f) is not correct for starters) therefore they cannot claim from the keeper
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:34
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Which is two different appeal points, to be clear
Not relevant land - keeper can never be liable Even if relevant ladn - Notice to keeper fails to follow POFA ... |
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:21
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
Cheers guys, after a little digging ive found the attached which would suggest that Marina area is outwith the Port Authority ? do i have any other alternatives ? Cheers It doesnt matter if the port authority dont use the powers any more or the land. IF they are covered under bylaws still then they are under statutory control and not relevant land. From what I can see that car park is firmly in the bylaw area |
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:02
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Hi POFA 9) 2) (f) states:
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; is this not represented on the very bottom of the NTK (PDF 01? Apologies if im mistaken This post has been edited by harribops: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 17:11 |
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:46
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Cheers guys, after a little digging ive found the attached which would suggest that Marina area is outwith the Port Authority ? do i have any other alternatives ? Cheers It doesnt matter if the port authority dont use the powers any more or the land. IF they are covered under bylaws still then they are under statutory control and not relevant land. From what I can see that car park is firmly in the bylaw area I was unable to discover a revocation order so, it would appear that the byelaws are still extant on the marina. Let them prove otherwise. The wording is precise, including the caveat: if all the applicable conditions under this schedule are met. They have missed that bit because it encourages you to check if, in fact, they do have it right. In consequence.......they don't!!!!! -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:06
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Hi POFA 9) 2) (f) states: (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; is this not represented on the very bottom of the NTK (PDF 01? Apologies if im mistaken No Because you are mistaking GIVEN for being the same thing as ISSUED Issuing something is day 0 (the day it goes in the post) Given, under POFA, means 2 working days after the date it is issued - the date it is assumed received by the recipient. This is a discreapncy of quite a few days and is somethihng they are entirely capabale of fixing. Its not tricky to understand the difference, because POFA explicitly tells you that it assumes two working days for post. |
|
|
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 11:00
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Cheers all will advise how it goes . Again Thanks all
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 11:17
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 14 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,848 |
Hi Guys,
Apologies for me poor updating, but after sending the following, i received no response until a county court summons arrived 09/04/19: Dear sirs, Ref XXXXXXXXXX I am in receipt of your above referenced invoice addressed to me, the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned. As this land is covered by the Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws, it is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a consequence of this, along with other failings, you cannot hold me liable as Registered Keeper and should make contact with the driver. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no legal obligation to name the driver and will not be so doing. Please don't attempt to rely upon either Elliott v Loake, CPS v AJH Films, Excel v Smith or any other case which you know full well do not support the assumption of the driver's identity or pass vicarious liability to a non-corporate Registered Keeper. You should also take note of your recent loss against a Registered Keeper who you tried to 'con' at Humberside Airport. I am happy to help you waste more money in that direction, should you so wish. Otherwise, I require you to confirm, within 7 days of the date of this letter, that you have cancelled the invoice and destroyed any personal details you hold on me. Your failure to comply will result in an immediate complaint to ICO and DVLA for improper use of my personal data. Additionally, i wish to make note that your Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not POFA compliant (9 (2) (f) is not correct thus they cannot claim from the Keeper. Regards XXX [attachment=63403:Court_Docs.pdf] Can i use the same edited reply to defend ? or not |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:56 |