UKCPS PCN - vanishing windscreen pcn - parked in a Disabled space without a valid BB - Parkgate Rotherham

[welshdean]

For PCN's received through the post [MNPR]

 

please answer the following questions. 

 

1 Date of the infringement 03/11/19

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 06/11/19

 

3 Date received 9/11/19

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

No mention of Schedule 4 – Only ...“Made under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes - There was only one pic with the NTK so I made a SAR and was provided with pics from both sides, rear and front. 

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A

 

7 Who is the parking company? UKCPS Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] XXXXXX Shopping Park – No mention of City/Town

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

-        1st instance, via: UKCPS.zatappeal.com

-        2nd instance if unsuccessful to: theIAS.org  

 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

There was only one pic with the NTK so I made a SAR and was provided with pics from both sides, rear and front. 

 

Sorry fellow members, my post above seems cold and demanding, I was editing it to state that I would really like your help but ran out of time,

I've given as much info as I can think of, but if you do need more, please ask. 

 

 

NTK front and back redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

you've omitted both pix and there times.

so they don't even say where you got done over?

 

dx

 

[welshdean]

 

Sorry mate, I don't understand, 

all pix are of a car that I'm the registered keeper of, that were allegedly parked in a contractual space.

 

I've been led to believe that specifics like times, reg no,  etc should be omitted. please correct me if i'm wrong.

 

What do you mean by 'so they don't even say where you got done over?' 

Honestly, I don't wish to come across as obtuse, but I really don't understand.

[dx100uk]

58 minutes ago, welshdean said:

XXXXXX Shopping Park – No mention of City/Town

so  the xxxx please 

you indicated you had 2 pcyures in/out

just obscure your reg on both

and give us the times of each too.

 

dx

 

[welshdean]

Aaah! 

Misunderstanding, it was an MNPR capture not ANPR so no pics 'in and out'.

 

My reference to pics was that they took many of my car in the bay, one from the front, rear and sides etc.

See attached  pdf: SAR-Redacted

 

BTW Pic 5 only shows a partial VRN

- the only pic that shows a portion of someones VRN and a lack of BB visibility.

subject-access-request-redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

no such thing as an MNPR

no such thing as a disabled bay in a private carpark

no such thing as a requirement to show a BB on private land

 

[welshdean]

Thanks dx100uk. 

So what do i do now? Is there a form letter to send? Appeal? Sit tight, etc, etc?

[dx100uk]

pers i'd do nothing until/unless your get a letter of claim from one of the fake/tame paperwork only solicitors they use to scare people

 

dx

 

[welshdean]

Thanks dude, I'll update when/if anything happens.

[ericsbrother]

you shouldnt be idle whilst you are waiting for them to make a noise though, get some pictures of the entrance to the land, whetehr there are signs there or not, pictures of any differently worded signs scattered about the place and pictures of the disabled bays and any signage there.

Reaso for the last bit is a judge decided that the disabled signage must be the specific ones used on council land and not just some made up one and there must be a sign for each bay. general terms on the main sign not good enough!

 

The land must be specificaly identifiable so if theplace is xxxx shopping centrea nd there is only 1 in the country that may pass the test but for example saying the Arndale centre when there are dozens fo those and multiple entrances/car parks etc for each of them it certainly wont do. that will be a fail for them in creating any liability and can allow you to sue them fro breach of the GDPR if you are so minded.

[welshdean]

Thanks ericsbrother, I'll get on to it. 

It appears that they had taken on the contract that very morning, so I'm one of their very lucky first victims. Waaaay 

[ericsbrother]

so get more info on that and tell us who told you this. You can alsways argue that your vehicle was there from before that time so the so called conditions didnt apply.

I bet there were no signs up then but will be now so find out the exact time the signs went up

[welshdean]

Update...

New contract angle appears to be an error. They've been there a while.

 

1 begging letter received and a follow-up  reminder, usual threats but nothing that's bothering me yet.

I've taken pics of the signage, they are impossible to read fully as the base of the signage is approx 2.5m high rising to approx 3m at the top.

[dx100uk]

as post 8

 

dx

 

[welshdean]

As is my intention dx.

[welshdean]

Had a lovely letter from Debt Recovery Plus. 

Informing me that most people settle this matter straight away, how I can pay, how I can pay if I'm having difficulties and what'll happen if I don't pay!

They finished with this paragraph:

Quote

 

Important information - Supreme Court decision about parking charges

You've probably heard people say that parking charges aren't lawful and and that motorists shouldn't pay them.

However, in November 2015 a parking operator, like our client, took a motorist to court for a parking charge - and won. The Supreme Court ruled that the parking charge was lawful. The ruling is seen as an important 'test case' for parking operators, like our client. You can find details online at 

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

 

 

Bless!

 

Still sticking with the plan dx.

 

Does anyone have some background or further info on the quoted 'ruling'?

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by welshdean
To add thumbs-up smiley -- hyperlink

[dx100uk]

Cant believe youve not seen u s mention beavis on cag!!

Have you not been reading up between hamster bedding arrivals..

[ericsbrother]

it determined that a company doesnt have to show a schedule of loss for them to make a court claim  as the supreme court decided to ditch the difference between commercial contract law and consumer law on thsi point so penalty charges can be used to enforce parking conditions but not as a deterrent to park.

All very complicated and not a green light for all charges as this wants you to belive

[welshdean]

Another begging letter. Still waiting for the LoC.