Advice please PCN on private land

[Lin33]

I have lost appeals to dismiss a PCN and am now receiving letters demanding £160. I have been told they will keep increasing this fee until it is over £600 when they will take me to court and I could have to pay court fees. Is this true?

 

 

 

My appeal is for several points of mitigating circumstances including that when parking I thought I was a patron as I was waiting for my passenger who told me he was entering the business and then didn't and that my passenger is my perpetrator and myself his victim of domestic abuse and I was forced to park where he told me as to not have done would have put my safety at risk. I can prove that I am a victim of domestic abuse.

 

 

 

The harassment for money for this PCN is reminiscent of financial abuse I have suffered. I was going to write to them to tell them to stop harassing me and that I am not paying for the above reasons. I am a single parent on benefits due to Complex -PTSD as a result of abuse.

 

 

 

The mitigating circumstances didn't get heard until stage 2 of the appeal process and the judge who dismissed my appeal said he could not consider mitigating circumstances at stage 2. What is likely to happen if I don't pay this. If they send debt collectors they will not find anything of value.

Edited September 3, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

 

You mention a judge in your post. Has this been to court?

 

 

Best, HB

[Jamberson]

First question - is this a PCN issued by a Council, or is it from a private company? It sounds like the latter, in which case the process is different - so please could you check and let us know.

 

 

Second - who is this 'judge'? Have you been sued by someone and been to court? Is it in fact that you went to a tribunal hearing to contest the charge? (If so, it wasn't a judge.)

[Lin33]

It is the latter, private company National Parking Enforcement LTD. It was an 'independent' appeals adjudicator from IAS. This is what I received;

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

 

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. While noting the Appellant's comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms.

 

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

 

Thank you very much for your time

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

 

Appealing to the IAS rarely goes well as they seem rather biased, but that's not your current issue. Ericsbrother is lurking so I'll let him comment for you.

 

 

HB

[honeybee13]

Here's a link to the Parking Prankster's site and his views on the 'Independant' appeals service.

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html

 

 

HB

[Lin33]

Yes I realised they were biased. What happens now my appeal has been dismissed. Will the fine keep going up until they take me to court and how much money will they try to take from me?

[honeybee13]

It isn't a fine, you haven't been near a court with this. We call them speculative invoices. They may increase the amount they're asking for to try and scare you because it works with a lot of people. We're made of sterner stuff here and it's unlikely we'll encourage you to cough up to these err, people.

 

 

You'll note that the appeal outcome isn't binding on you. I expect EB will be along to advise on the finer points of all this later.

 

 

HB

[Lin33]

No I realise I haven't been to court, I mean the company who are writing to me demanding the fine want tot take me to court. I will not pay, I am refusing. I just want to know what happens to other people in my position who have refused to pay.

[ericsbrother]

Not winnng your appeal doesnt change a thing, thery are not a court or tribunal and do not consider the law or even the quality of the evidence when making their decisions, merely what the parking co has told them. Mitigation means nothing, either here or anywhere else so forget that. In short, they are a Kangaroo Court and can safely be ignored.

 

 

Now the decision does embolden the parking to try an wring the money out of you but chances are they have got things wrong and you dotn actually legally owe them anything anyway.

 

 

What we need to know is where was the parking event, what was the reason you are supposed to owe them money for and what paperwork you have received since as you say £160 but if the matter has just come back from IAS then it cant be that amount so you are being lied to for starters.

 

 

debt collectors have no powers to do anything at all, they write nasty letters because that is all they can do, they are not bailifss and bailiffs only get involved if the debt is more than £600, you fail to pay it when ordered to do so by a court and the matter is transferred to thwe High court for enforcement and that costs money to do that anyway. The debt will not rise to £600, why do you think it will. If you buy a chocolate bar the price doesnt go up just because the shopkeeper has trouble with his till.

 

 

All of these things can be batted away, some easier than others so stop panicking and tell us what we need to know to be able to advise you. If the place your car was parked is near to you then we would like to see pictures of the entrance to the land and pictures of the sigange and any apymet equipment there such as parking meters

Edited September 3, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[Lin33]

I parked on private land of a business; The Georgian Townhouse for 30 minutes and they are saying I was a non patron - I believed I was as I gave my passenger a lift there and my passenger told me he had been in ther premises. They say that he didn't enter and I was a non patron. They were the mitigating circumstances they would not take on, that I thought I was a genuine customer. I was just waiting in my car for the passenger to come back, I got out to find him and then left. The parking company say the passenger didn't enter so the fine still stands. They have photos of my car and of me standing outside it (back of me with my hood up). Debt Recovery Plus are the company demanding £160. I will upload the parking charge notice with the phots on from the library tomorrow. I offered them £20 to cover their losses. How often do these 'people' take their victims to court.

[ericsbrother]

that isnt actually that helpful a response, we need to know where exactly you parked with town name, postcode or some other indication so we can find it on google streetview. As for your reasons to be there they are more than likely immaterial. Anyways the car park is managed by a different comapny to the hotel so whatever the hotel says doesnt count for much but the signage does.

Debt recovery plis are NOT the creditor and are asking for £160 because they thin you are stupid or ignorant enough to pay them that amount rather than it being a genuine debt. Ignore them completely.

so name of parking co, exact place of the event and whatevr else you can tell us about what letters you have received and who from. This is easily beaten in most cases. as for court- the parking co's lose nearly every defended case but only 15% of peopel bother to fight when it gets that far so they are lazy with their approach and will normally drop the claim beofre a court hearing to save themselves money and embarrasment.

[Jamberson]

Private parking charges like this are almost completely unenforceable - the have no real way of making you pay, and they know it.

 

Please don't give them £20 of your money. Don't give them anything.

 

There is a very small number of cases where they do take people to court, but I understand they expect to lose, and do it only because the small possibility of that tends to make people worry and pay up.

 

There is a separate section of this site for private charges, where you will read countless more cases like your own.

[Lin33]

The Georgian Townhouse is in Norwich - England, parking company is National Parking Enforcement LTD. Debt Recovey lus Ltd are writing 'on behalf of the criditor' demanding £160. The car park had signs, was a bit dark and I was parked under a hedge and didn't see any sign as I sat in the car mostly - plus didn't think they applied to me as a 'customer'. The hotel I parked at could say £60 - 100 is a fair price to bill me for parking losses I suppose if the car park was full and other customers couldn't get in but it was half empty - I don't have proof only witness.

[ericsbrother]

Please gte it into your head this is nothing to do with losses for the hotel, they gave that right away to a bunch of cowboys. it is purely about CONTRACTS. and the signage at the entrance to the car park isnt a contract but an "invitation to treat" and that means there is no offer and consideration before agreement so they cnat bill you for £100 for breaching the contract as you dont have to accept it when it is written elsewhere.

the standard explanation is as follows. You see a sign in a shop window saying 50% off most trousers so you go inside and ask to try on a pair of jeans. you ask how much they cost and get told they are not included in the sale. Now the sign is an invitation to treat, you are invited to come in and consider various offers and the shopkeeper is not obliged to sell you everything at 50% off and you are not obliged to buy anything just because you liked something. The shopkeeper cant then ask you to pay him £100 towards his electric bill just because you used his changing room to try something on and that is essentially what the parking co is doing. They say that parking is offered and separate terms are for your consideration. they dont actually say you cant park or can only park if you accept terms you cant read yet. The latter is unlawful and the former means it is for the landowner to ask you to leave rather then the parking co demanding money for staying.

Now the parking co will always say that you accepted the terms and the IPC/IAS will always support this because their members pay them to argue on their behalf, not to tell them the public are right and they have to behave so that is why your appeal would never be successful under any circumstance.

Now, as explained, the law is different and a court will consider all of these points but seeing the signage inside the car park will be especially helpful as they may well have bigger things wrong with them that make the entire contract void anyways. there are more points to raise lateron if need be but get your head around this first and show us some nice piccies of the signs. I take yur point about it being dark and parking under trees that will obscure any signs ( i cant see them on goggle noseyneighbour) that will also be considered by a court if it comes to it.

[ericsbrother]

in the meanwhile leave a rubbish review on their social media sites, trip advisor etc regarding how they dont advertise that they have employed a buch of bandits to chisel their customers out of money and then claim that they werent customers after all.