PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private Parking Police, PCN Hartlepool Marina
harribops
post 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]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cabbyman
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post 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 smile.gif

As you suggest do others agree or have any additional statements to include.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:49
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,848



lol will do smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post 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 smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post 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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post 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 ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:21
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (harribops @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:23) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post 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



QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 16:21) *
QUOTE (harribops @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:23) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:06
Post #18


Member


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



QUOTE (harribops @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 18:02) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
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 smile.gif. Again Thanks all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
harribops
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:56
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