1 Date of the infringement - 7/10/19
2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10/10/19
3 Date received - 12/10/19
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] -
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Y
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] - Y
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - Y
7 Who is the parking company? - CPM (UK Car Park Management)
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Trinity Park, Birmingham ( I was on a road, not a car park)
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - IPC
Apologies for the delay in writing this. My circumstances are as follows
In October last year, I pulled into Trinity Park after leaving Birmingham International Train station on the airport complex.
As you come out of the train station, you come to a roundabout.
The first left is Trinity Park.
Apparently it’s a private road, but there are no signs today tis as you enter.
(research shows that years ago there were barriers and a manned hut in the middle of the road. These are no longer there)
I actually turned in there by mistake, not realising it was n fact a cut de sac. I was trying to exit the complex.
As I entered the road I saw a male in a car look at me, and as i drove past him he immediately did a u turn and followed me.
I was a Police officer for 22 years, and just notice this type of thing.
I then quickly realised i was in a cup de sac and needed to turn around.
I did this at the end of the cul de sac, and noticed this male then did the same.
It made no sense to me that he would, from the entrance of a cul de sac, go back in to then turn back around to come back out.
It was clear to me he was following me and was suspicious.
I pulled over at the side of the road briefly, so he would have to drive past me.
However, he didn’t, and was sat in his vehicle about 10 metres behind me.
I was watching him in my rear view mirror, which is when i saw him put his phone out of the window and start taking photos.
This was now beyond strange, so i got out of my car and walked up to his to challenge him.
When i got to his vehicle it absolutely stunk of cannabis.
I asked what he was doing , an all he said was " you can't park there".
I said I wasn't actually parked, but had come to see what he was up to.
I them pointed out his car stunk of cannabis, to which he silly said " so?"
I then took his photograph, to which he said I couldn’t.
I pointed out that I could, at which point he sped off (the photos of him and his vehicle have hopefully uploaded successfully)
Within a week I received a PCN.
I immediately appealed stating that I didn’t consider I was parked.
I had pulled over due to the operator’s suspicious activity, which then led to me having to leave my vehicle to challenge him.
I provided my photos, told them about the drugs and that I was a police officer, and more than happy to go to court and give evidence around this.
I also said that I would be asking to see his business insurance for the vehicle in court.
I also pointed out that in the photo they had of me, my brake lights were still activated, suggesting I had indeed just pulled over on the road.
This appeal was rejected, they said they would raise my concerns about the operative and the company may be n contact around this ( they haven't to date) I then had an email about another appeal to an adjudicator.
I put very little details on this one, saying id really just like to go to court and cross examine the operative.
I also explained that I am a qualified drugs expert witness, entitled to give evidence of opinion in court cases.
I would now start research on this case, and be charging my day rate to every day I spent on it.
A few days ago I had a further email to say my appeal had been allowed.
Ill paste the reply below.
The crux of it is, which hopefully may help others going forward, is that where i was "parked" it was impossible to see the signs saying no parking.
Here is their reply to my appeal:
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case.
In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances.
Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved.
A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
The Appellant contends that the Parking Charge should not have been issued as he only pulled over due to the suspicious behaviour of the parking attendant.
The operator submits that the signage is clear and the Appellant should have seen this signage and been aware that he was unable to stop on the roadway.
The one sign I can see in the photographs submitted is some 10 metres in front of the Appellant's vehicle and could not be read by the Appellant from where he stopped.
As the operator has failed to submit a site plan, I cannot be sure whether the Appellant had already passed further signs indicating the restrictions, or where in fact the restrictions start and end on the roadway.
As much as the Appellant wishes to attend court on this matter, due to the lack of any further evidence submitted by the operator, I cannot be satisfied that the Parking Charge was properly issued, therefore I am allowing this appeal. "