Is this PCN legitimate? |
Is this PCN legitimate? |
Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:57
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Brother has been parking here regularly for quite some time. Wanted to confirm if this is legitimate and if it is to be paid or not.
Had a look at their picture that is available to view online, but it's very unclear, so cannot read the notice. Brother said there were no road markings or yellow lines there. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 11:57
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 10:09
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Hello Everyone, So, I'm still not sure what I'm meant to do? He says the post code is RM20 4BL-apparently he's been parking there for 5 months with his permit, and surprised it was issued at 3am. Is this a residential parking case? Is the driver or keeper leaseholder or tenant at the development where this car park is situated? yes, residential. My brother is a lodger at the place. A "lodger"... Does your brother have a lease or a rental agreement? He pays rent but is a lodger- the landlord lives with him. |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 10:28
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
Not many can now comply with the first requirement of the signage - 'A valid UKCPM permit & tax disc must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times'.
Lots of people at risk of falling foul of that 'contract' now! |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 10:39
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Not many can now comply with the first requirement of the signage - 'A valid UKCPM permit & tax disc must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times'. Lots of people at risk of falling foul of that 'contract' now! Yes, because isn't vehicle taxation now done online? This is a bit confusing, in terms of, what to do. Should it be paid then? |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 10:44
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
It's an impossible term to comply with. But it's unlikely to have any material difference unless they were pursuing on that basis...
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 10:48
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
Not many can now comply with the first requirement of the signage - 'A valid UKCPM permit & tax disc must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times'. Lots of people at risk of falling foul of that 'contract' now! Yes, because isn't vehicle taxation now done online? This is a bit confusing, in terms of, what to do. Should it be paid then? All I'm trying to show you is how flaky their signage is, and if that is the only legal contract they have binding a motorist to them, then not only is it flaky, but shaky too. There has been no requirement to display a tax disc for 4 years. Can you imagine any other legal contract containing requirements 4 years out of date having much standing? No one here advises paying this. |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:51
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Not many can now comply with the first requirement of the signage - 'A valid UKCPM permit & tax disc must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times'. Lots of people at risk of falling foul of that 'contract' now! Yes, because isn't vehicle taxation now done online? This is a bit confusing, in terms of, what to do. Should it be paid then? All I'm trying to show you is how flaky their signage is, and if that is the only legal contract they have binding a motorist to them, then not only is it flaky, but shaky too. There has been no requirement to display a tax disc for 4 years. Can you imagine any other legal contract containing requirements 4 years out of date having much standing? No one here advises paying this. Hahaha yes no, I understood what you were pointing out So would one advise to write a letter, enclosing the permit, and explaining that the requirement to display a tax disc is unfair, as vehicles are taxed online, and have been for 4 years? Just trying to gauge what course of action one should take, as today is the 14th day to pay the reduced fare or risk it going up. |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:56
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
QUOTE So would one advise to write a letter, enclosing the permit, and explaining that the requirement to display a tax disc is unfair, as vehicles are taxed online, and have been for 4 years? Does he have an actual parking permit? If so he should copy that with any challenge being made. But the tax disc issue is not relevant to this case unless, as Jlc said above, they were specifically pursuing him for not displaying a tax disc. At the risk of repeating myself, I referenced this to show how old the 'contract' is and that it might help to throw doubt as to how enforceable it might be currently, after this passage of time. It is something to add to any court case and for a Judge to be made aware of for his assessment of the claim. It isn't a showstopper in its own right. |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 13:16
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Sign states that unauthorised parking MAY result in a PCN being issued. So, will it, or won't it? Not a great contractual term which, as it is vague, should be interpreted in the motorist's favour. In other words a PCN won't be issued. Nice try, but it would more likely be interpreted as allowing the PPC to exercise its discretion to issue a PCN or refrain from doing so, rather than as an "ambiguous" term to be interpreted in the consumer's favour. Additionally, the inclusion of a "valid tax disc" requirement should be embarrassing for the PPC, but the signs are simply the offer; the "contract" is freshly made each time someone "accepts" the terms on the signs and parks up. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 15:21
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Ok so bottom line- what should I do?
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 09:00
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
What is the best course of action we should adopt in this situation.
BTW, We received a PCN for the exact same thing, but in the post. and this is dated 16th August. so we have 2 now. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 09:15
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So post up a redacted copy of that PCN. Leave the dates.
So there was no response with a copy of the permit, as suggested? This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 09:16 |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 09:56
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Apologies, I had put the permit and then took it down because there was info on it. Forgot to upload again. Here it is again: |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 10:38
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Is this the same PCN Number? If it is then they have shot themselves in the foot, if not you have 2 PCNs from them. One a notice to Driver for an incident on the 6th August and the other a Notice to Keeper, without windscreen ticket, for an incident on the 16th.
The Notice to Keeper gives the date of issue as 24th August for an incident on the 16th August. What was the date of sending on the NTK or when did you actually receive it? This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 10:41 |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 11:49
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
Is the landlord the leasehold owner of the flat?
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 12:22
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Got a PCN sent to my mother's address, as she is the registered keeper, but it's for the same vehicle in the same place, dated 24/08/18 for an incident on 16/08/18 at 0232hrs. We just received it recently (issues with post in the block of flats).
Got the windshield PCN dated 30/08/18 at 0305hrs, same area, the next day when my brother went to the car. Different PCN numbers. No notice to keeper sent/received yet. My brother is renting a room in the area of where this incident has occurred - he is a lodger, as the landlord lives there. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 12:40
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
Yes, but is his landlord the leasehold owner of the property?
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 13:08
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
For the windshield ticket, dated 30th August then appeal this with CPM AS THE KEEPER so that it arrives on day 25 after the alleged breach date of the 30th of August. This is to persuade CPM to save £2.50 by not applying to the DVLA for the keepers data. In the appeal make a slight spelling mistake on the contact details, ie Greene instead of Green, so that you know if they have actually contacted the DVLA to get the V5 address. The result will be either no Notice to keeper will arrive before day 56 or if it does then they may not have contacted the DVLA. Bot are fails under POFA keeper liability.
For the the Notice to Keeper, for the alleged breach on the 24th, I asked what date did you actually receive it. "Recently" is not a good answer. The relevant period is 14 days after the event. Is there a date sent on the letter? Was it sent royal mail first class? Having got the keepers details from the DVLA for the second alleged breach they may just be tempted to use the keepers details they got from the DVLA a second time. Not allowed. You will be emailing the DVLA, SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk, 56 days after the 30th August to ask who has accessed the keepers details, when and how many times. I think you should start a second thread about the NTK you received in the post otherwise it is going to get confusing. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 13:15
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Yes, but is his landlord the leasehold owner of the property? Let me ask him to find out-I'd say no, because it's in a block of flats, but let me ask him For the windshield ticket, dated 30th August then appeal this with CPM AS THE KEEPER so that it arrives on day 25 after the alleged breach date of the 30th of August. This is to persuade CPM to save £2.50 by not applying to the DVLA for the keepers data. In the appeal make a slight spelling mistake on the contact details, ie Greene instead of Green, so that you know if they have actually contacted the DVLA to get the V5 address. The result will be either no Notice to keeper will arrive before day 56 or if it does then they may not have contacted the DVLA. Bot are fails under POFA keeper liability. For the the Notice to Keeper, for the alleged breach on the 24th, I asked what date did you actually receive it. "Recently" is not a good answer. The relevant period is 14 days after the event. Is there a date sent on the letter? Was it sent royal mail first class? Having got the keepers details from the DVLA for the second alleged breach they may just be tempted to use the keepers details they got from the DVLA a second time. Not allowed. You will be emailing the DVLA, SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk, 56 days after the 30th August to ask who has accessed the keepers details, when and how many times. I think you should start a second thread about the NTK you received in the post otherwise it is going to get confusing. Ok let me do another thread for the PCN dated 24.08.18. (May I just ask why everyone is calling it a NTK? I thought this is usually issued after a PCN is issued and hasn't been responded to? ) Now, for the windshield one, I don't quite follow. CPM are the "keeper"? isn't that usually a term referred to for a car? If so, I'm a little confused by this. This post has been edited by Zazaa: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 13:11 |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 13:33
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Notice to Keeper is what POFA calls it, and it appears in the title sometimes. A PCN can be either on the windscreen (Notice to Driver, NTD) or sent to the keeper through the post with or without a windscreen ticket (Notice to Keeper, NTK).
Misunderstanding. The keeper appeals to CPM (isn't English wonderful?) must not be the driver so that they think they don't have to access the DVLA. It has worked before. |
|
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 16:15
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 13 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,939 |
Notice to Keeper is what POFA calls it, and it appears in the title sometimes. A PCN can be either on the windscreen (Notice to Driver, NTD) or sent to the keeper through the post with or without a windscreen ticket (Notice to Keeper, NTK). Misunderstanding. The keeper appeals to CPM (isn't English wonderful?) must not be the driver so that they think they don't have to access the DVLA. It has worked before. ah right, ok. I understand. What should I be writing in my appeal? That I believe it has been issued in error and to see enclosed permit? This post has been edited by Zazaa: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 16:16 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:12 |