Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking ticket with wrong date


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5319 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Back in January I received a parking ticket from a (free) retail car park. I'd arrived 20 minutes before the shops opened and had walked into the centre to go to the toilet. When I got back the ticket was attached to the car windscreen for leaving the site, but it had the wrong date on- it was dated 5 days later for some reason.

 

Since then, I heard nothing until the start of May, when I received a notice letter from Akita Security Services telling me to pay up within 14 days or the retail park would commence civil proceedings. Again it had the wrong date on and 3 weeks later (this weekend just gone) I received almost exactly the same letter.

 

Am I right to keep on ignoring these people, or should I write and tell them I wasn't in the retail park on the date in question? I should be able to provide proof I was at work at the time as we have an electronic swipe system in place and it would show I was on site at the time.

Edited by Sportbilly90210
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will do when I get back home this evening. From a quick read around the site it looks like a fairly standard one, although I'm surprised it took them 4 months to make initial contact- I thought they'd realised their date mistake and decided not to bother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, they do seem pretty shonky, but like all decent companies their address is apparently a PO Box…

 

Right, the original ticket was marked ‘Civil Penalty Notice’ and the breach was ‘parking at private car park and leaving site’. The date on the actual ticket is wrong and so are the dates on the two letters I’ve received.

 

The first letter has a heading ‘Notice to Owner/ Driver/ Hirer’ and the following text after the registration, date, notice number and breach details-

 

The driver who left the Vehicle with the above Registration Number in a parking place in the *** Retail Park, on **/**/2009, is alleged to have failed to pay the Civil Penalty Notice of 40.00 pounds incurred for the Breach: Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking space.

 

AMOUNT PAID TO DATE: £0.00

 

We have to advise you that *** Retail Park will commence civil proceedings against you, unless payment of the outstanding amount is received in full within 14 days of the date of this letter. Payment should be made by Cheque or Postal Order made payable to “Akita Parking Services” and sent to the above address. (Please write the Civil Penalty Notice number on the reverse of the cheque).

 

If you have any queries relating to this Notice please write to the Notice Processing Department at the above address Without Delay.

 

Akita Parking Services

For and on Behalf of *** Retail Park

The second letter is pretty much the same, although it is headed ‘FINAL REMINDER’ and there’s a bit more bold and caps, presumably to impress on me the full might and majesty of the retail park, although I'm not sure why the park itself will be involved when they've employed Akita to do their dirty work for them-

 

A Notice to Owner was sent to you on **/**/2009 in connection with a breach of the terms and conditions of the car park at *** Retail Park. According to our records, you have not paid the Civil Penalty Notice of £40.00, which was affixed to the above vehicle.

 

AMOUNT PAID TO DATE: £0.00

 

We have to advise you that *** Retail Park will commence civil proceedings against you, unless payment of the outstanding amount is received in full within 14 days of the date of this letter. Payment should be made by Cheque or Postal Order made payable to Akita Parking Services and sent to the above address. (Please write the Notice number on the reverse of the cheque).

 

If you have any queries relating to this letter please write to the above address Without Delay.

 

Akita Parking Services

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF *** Retail Park

Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Notice to Owner/ Driver/ Hirer’

 

So which one do they want? :D

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please clarify what "offence" supported by legislation is committed by someone wandering "off-site" and how a PPC can dream up a charge (resulting in a loss to them) for such an occurance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please clarify what "offence" supported by legislation is committed by someone wandering "off-site" and how a PPC can dream up a charge (resulting in a loss to them) for such an occurance?

 

Crem,

 

You know better than to feed the troll :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Oooh, I thought they'd given up, but I got a letter from Roxburghe Debt Collectors and the amount they're asking for has gone up to £70. Funny thing is, not only have they got the date wrong, they've now put down the wrong name for the retail park- I've never heard of it and there definitely isn't one locally. I presume the same applies- just ignore them completely?

 

We have been instructed by the above named client who has informed us that a PARKING CHARGE NOTICE was attached to the above mentioned vehicle and the driver should have paid. However, we are advised that they have not yet received payment, or any valid dispute.

 

Your data has been provided to us by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002*) and they have advised us that you were the registered keeper of the vehicle at the relevant date and time. If you were the driver, you must pay the total amount due as stated above within 7 days from the date of this letter.

 

In line with the Terms and Conditions of parking at the above site, you have incurred late payment charges which are included in the Total Amount Due. Please send payment to the address above. Cheques should be made payable to Roxburghe (UK) Limited.

 

If you were not the driver at the time, please tell us who was driving by completing the details below.

 

Your sincerely

 

Steve Dargonne

Parking Services Manager

Roxburghe (UK) Limited

 

There's then an IMPORTANT NOTICE TO REGISTERED KEEPER, in which they state that the registered keeper is responsible for the acts of the driver and that they will pursue the registered keeper in the absence of driver specifics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote

 

There's then an IMPORTANT NOTICE TO REGISTERED KEEPER, in which they state that the registered keeper is responsible for the acts of the driver and that they will pursue the registered keeper in the absence of driver specifics

 

total crap and they know it

 

back to the rules on PPC's

 

1) IGNORE

2) IGNORE

3) GO TO 1

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, I thought they'd given up, but I got a letter from Roxburghe Debt Collectors and the amount they're asking for has gone up to £70. Funny thing is, not only have they got the date wrong, they've now put down the wrong name for the retail park- I've never heard of it and there definitely isn't one locally. I presume the same applies- just ignore them completely?

 

 

 

There's then an IMPORTANT NOTICE TO REGISTERED KEEPER, in which they state that the registered keeper is responsible for the acts of the driver and that they will pursue the registered keeper in the absence of driver specifics.

 

Roxburghe are CSA registered. that 'Important notice' being rubbish has to be clear breach of the CSA code. Complaint to the CSA seems in order CSA Website

Link to post
Share on other sites

by all means give Roxburghe a chance first then the CSA will have to take notice of your complaint as you have followed the CSA method - but Roxburghe hasn't. Don't dispute or discuss or mention details the 'debt' or the legalities of the PPC in your letter to Roxburghe. Just 'discuss' the CSA code and Roxbughe's failure to follow it. tell them that you are giving them the 'opportunity to cure'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. This is the exact text at the bottom of the letter-

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO REGISTERED KEEPER

 

Under the Terms and Conditions associated with this PARKING CHARGE NOTICE it is important to note that every person who enters into a contract with the Company for the parking of a vehicle at the Car Park, whether by purchasing a ticket or otherwise, does so on behalf of himself and all other persons having any proprietary possessory or other financial interest in the vehicle and its contents.

 

*For any queries relating to obtaining your information, making a complaint to the DVLA, or the British Parking Association's appeals procedure please visit Additional Information - Roxburghe Parking Services.

 

Whilst writing, we would like to draw your attention to common law doctrine of the law of agency, which confirms that a principal (registered keeper) is liable for the acts of its agent (the driver). As a result of this, it is our intention to pursue the registered keeper/ owner of the vehicle in the absence of driver specifics.

 

I'm not sure which part of the CSA Code of Practice this contravenes, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its misleading, and its rubbish. "and all other persons having any proprietary possessory or other financial interest in the vehicle and its contents." there can be an 'agent' complication but not as they have stated it. and they are not pursuing under common law. irrelevant and misleading. they are pursuing under contract and privity is key. do not use their online complaints web thing, send it special delivery to their head office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...