KBT/Armtrac/BW Windscreen PCN Claimform - blown away ticket- Lusty Glaze car park, Newquay - Advice Please

[lookinforinfo]

Welcome to the Forum Willow.

When you have read a few other  threads you will find a complete absence of common sense from any of the crooks who mismanage car parks.  You will find greed and avarice in abundance closely followed by lies and ignorance. Their only saving grace is that they are also extremely stupid and that is where we catch them out.

 

There is no need to pay their PCN as you have already paid so they have suffered no loss.

Do not waste time writing to them as they don't understand the concept that people do not need to pay twice.

They have lost in Court quite a few times but they think if they threaten enough and ramp up their charges, many people will pay.  So just ignore them.

 

They won't go away but  just relax knowing that they are wasting their time and money on you.

They will also set their unregulated debt collectors on you.

Don't worry about them they are possibly more venal and stupid than even Armtrac, hard though it may be to believe.

Just ignore them too.

 

They only write about twice-they have a very limited vocabulary and absolutely nothing to worry about.

They also use solicitors who know less about the Law than my 6 year old granddaughter-and she knows nothing about the Law but she's very cute.

 

In order to help us could you kindly post up both PCNs  and the correspondence with Armtrac and BW Legal please.

That will show up other things that they have done wrong should they not give up.

It is always useful to have more than one string to your bow.

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Willow,

as you can see why we advise against writing to any of them since they are not interested in anything other than getting you to pay. Kind of rich for BW legal advising you to seek legal advice when they are trying to charge you an extra £60 for legal costs for which you are not liable as the keeper.  No wonder they lose so many cases for their clients when the intricacies of POFA are obviously beyond them. 

 

It doesn't look as if you have compromised yourself by writing to them

-just wasting your time since they are not going to backdown yet.

 

You did include the windscreen PCN but not the NTK.

It would help if you could kindly include that minus your name, reg no etc.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I suspect that when you wrote and said that you were ther keeper and paid the ticket, they have taken it that you were also the driver so no  need to send a NTK. That does mean that if you were not the driver then their lack of the NTK means that as the keeper you are not liable for the debt as there has been no mention from them of POFA. 

[lookinforinfo]

You have to understand that collectively Armtrac have the brain capacity of less than a single amoeba. So the concept say of even a husband and wife as an example where one is the keeper and the other the driver hasn't quite sunk in with them yet. Give them a couple of years at least and perhaps they will get it.

 

Just ignore them and their unregulated debt collectors and anyone else. But if you get a Letter before Claim then let us know . Just go on enjoying life in lockdown and forget them.

[lookinforinfo]

The new Code of Practice section on Pay and Display is interesting-

 

6.2 Pay-and-display

Where relevant obligations require the parking tariff receipt to be displayed in the parked vehicle, in addition to the information given in 6.1.2, the parking operator must ensure the information provided includes clear instructions on where the receipt is to be displayed. A thorough check through the windscreen and side windows of a parked vehicle must be conducted before a notice of parking charge is issued for non-display of a receipt by a parking attendant.

 

It would seem common sense to check first unless you were a scummy company who just wanted the motorist's money rather than run a car park for the benefit of the store and the motorist.  Case proved- they are a scummy company.

[lookinforinfo]

It looks as if you haven't received an NTK as it should have come between 28 and 56 days after the alleged breach. I note that early on you received an email with photographs  f your car. That usually means that you have identified yourself as the driver so an NTK is unnecessary.  Therefore they can only pursue you as the driver and cannot use POFA to transfer the claim to you as keeper [DCBL are good at that ].

 

Is there  a photograph of the inside of your car showing the ticket on the floor ?  

 

There have only been a few cases so far where the new Government Code of Practice has been used. Some of the Code should be in force now but as that would mean a loss of income to the parking crooks they choose to ignore it. This is good news for you as you can point out where they have fallen short of their legal responsibilities so they can be caught out.  You have to bear in mind that Judges try to be fair to both sides and while they are at fault, so were you by not checking your ticket.Fortunately that is a minor quibble and you did pay so you should have a successful day.

 

I will go over the new Act with you tomorrow and try and wait until you receive their WS as they are often rubbish and easy to knock thus putting you in an even better place with the Judge.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The Government brought out  a sequel to PoFA 2012 in 2019 though all of it does not come into force until 2023. But the Government has said that those items that can be brought in now, should be and others like the rewriting of the wording of PCNs will take longer as will new arrangements with Land owners.

 

For example the new Code reinforces the old PoFA about  extra charges. The government say that they are a rip off and the old PoFA stated that the maximum charged would be the amount on the signage {ie £100 ]. So any parking crook still overcharging should be banned from access to the DVLA.  It is a definite no no.

 

It follows that when a ticket falls off the dashboard that an attempt should be made to look around the car for a fallen ticket especially in this situation where a gale is blowing. In any event the ticket is proof that the tariff was paid  even if the parking crooks do not accept that the Act is in force, Judges should certainly be in doubt that such a simple ruling should already be in force or that it would be prudent for parking crooks to observe it since that is the will of Parliament.

 

 

There is no keeper liability  because the NTD was non PoFA compliant plus no NTK sent so they can only pursue the driver.

 

If you can wait till the last moment before posting to the Court to allow KBT to send their WS to you that could give you more ammunition.

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

 

The NTD which was placed on your car is not compliant with PoFA. It is supposed to show the period of parking when the alleged breach occurred. Instead it shows your arrival and leaving times only and as that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot, parking then leaving the parking spot and driving out of the car park which is not parking, the parking period is wrongly timed and therefore does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms 2012. Nor does it say that  Armtrac is the creditor.

 

When you appealed you must have revealed that you were the driver as they don't appear to have sent you a Notice to keeper. They cannot therefore pursue you as the keeper-only the driver, which they think is you, is liable. 

 

When you appealed, if you said for example that I purchased the ticket instead of the driver purchased the ticket, that would be proof enough  that you were the driver. And once you have admitted that, there is no need for an NTK.

 

Signage

You should mention that the entrance sign does not offer a contract only an invitation to treat since it does not exhibit all the T&CS-they are inside the car park.

Their signage does not comply with PoFA. There is a minimum ten minute consideration period yet their notices require payment to be made within ten minutes which is against the Act especially as it can take several minutes to make the phone call not only when the phone is engaged. That renders the whole sign and their T&CS  unenforceable. And even worse is the Just Park pay machine which demands that payment is required on arrival.

 

The new Act reinforces the original PoFA regarding planning permission for signs and cameras under the Town and Country  [Advertisements] Regulations.

14.1

" g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs   "

[lookinforinfo]

 

That is why our advice is not to appeal.

 

I am trying to get to bed at a decent hour Dave  but after midnight my daughter and I have races to see who can win at Wordle, and Quordle.  Sometimes we also do Hexordle and Octordle  just for the hell of it.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am reading their rubbish WS but have noticed that you have not posted up their signage. There are often problems with the signage that can blow the case out of the water before the Judge even gets to the  fluttering ticket.. In fact can you please upload all they sent-I take it planning permission was not included?

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I would make the following observations to their WS in no particular order.

 

At point 22 DCB Legal finally admit that the driver did purchase a ticket.  The placing of the receipt on the windscreen is the proof that the ticket has been paid for. Any reasonable company would drop the case after receiving proof of payment. Especially as on the day it was an extremely windy day and the car would have rocked quite violently as a result and KBT should have provided sticky receipts. On top of that under the new Private Parking Code of Practice that came into force in 2019 recommended that operators should look inside the car for fallen tickets before issuing a PCN. Obviously that was not done in this case and nor was it the only time that KBT failed with regards to the new Act.

 

The entrance sign is what determines whether motorists are being offered a contract. The one at Lusty Glaze does not. It only provides an offer to treat. The bulk of the signs have too small a font size and the photographs shown on the WS are virtually unreadable. Nor do any photographs actually show where the car was parked.

 

In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen are Authorised to be taken to Court and be sued for trespass. You paid your money so you were not a trespasser and therefore  KBT do not have the permission to take you to Court.   Very important. You could probably make this your first point.

 

At point 12 they complain about motorists using the web. 

When the parking companies lie in their Witness Statements-  one Judge said about Parking Eye that "their WS was tantamount to perjury":  they  lie in court eg  they do not need pp for their signs and cameras or  pp can be obtained retrospectively and they  lie about additional charges which have been described by a Government minister as "a rip off" then motorists have to go somewhere to counteract the rapacity and greed of many parking companies. So bad has their behaviour  become that the Government brought out the new Act to curb the excesses of the" rogue companies".

 

Point 13. 

Far from the Defendant having escalated the matter disproportionally  s a bit rich from a company that is unlawfully 

overcharging the Defendant by almost double the legal amount. 

 

In Schedule 4 s7[2] 

(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice;

 it is quite clear that Parliament regarded the amount on the Sign as the maximum amount to be charged. The new Act that came out in 2019  s9

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

It beggars belief that DCB Legal have not advised their client to remove such spurious extra charges and they must surely be aware of the new Act. They must know that the decision by HHJ Saffman was an outlier spoken by a Judge who does not often get involved in PoFA cases whereas the majority of District Judges who are regularly dealing with these unlawful claims throw them out. 

 

In the light of PoFA and the new Act it would appear that KBT are one of the companies depicted as one of the rogues the Government  are rightly targeting.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Quick alteration. The Private parking Act came partly into force in February 2022.

 

Also their Supplementary WS should be challenged as they are trying to get round the Judge's request.

In any event it is a load of b..........s.

 

They are trying hard to justify the extra costs over £100. I have already pointed out in my previous post  what the will of Parliament is. No more than £100. Also bad to use an unreported case as we cannot refute what was said

 

HHJ Saffman is wrong. He has admitted that many of his District Judges did not agree with him and his judgement was not obiter. Like Simkiss, they had not seen the confirmation from the new Act that reinforces what PoFA has always said.

 

The extra charges are not allowed-they are against the Law. The IPC Code of Conduct breaks the Law.

 

Why can they break the law by not having planning permission but they expect you to pay when you didn't break the Law and actually paid for your ticket.

 

Ask the Judge to dismiss their case as having no merit. Plus their signs break the law by allowing debt recovery charges

 

Sorry to give you extra work but it will pay dividends. If you word it right, Armtrac might withdraw before the case is heard.

[lookinforinfo]

That was an excellent WS-congratulations.  KBT would be best advised not to waste their money on your case. Sadly greed and stupidity are common bedfellows for the parking crooks.