Jump to content


should private parking companies be using the term PCN??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 168 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

Could I just add one further piece of information about PCNs - I have just used this in my defense against Civil Enforcement submitted to Peterborough Crown Court - actually today! Anyone can feel free to quote me on the following!

 

5. Under civil contract law in England, no private individual or company has the statutory power to fine or apply a penalty to another individual or company. The only authorities that are allowed to issue fines or penalty notices are courts, the police (traffic wardens come under the police) and councils under certain by-law though these fines are usually administered by courts. The claimant is a private company. It is actually illegal for them to issue a fine or a penalty notice to anyone or any company. I note that KFC stated that their car parking company “fined” people. Clearly, this is illegal and this car parking company should be subject to criminal action.

Though many of the letters that the claimant sent me were very threatening making all sort of false claims about what would happen to me if I didn’t pay the claimant ridiculous some of money for some offence, they were careful not to use the word “fine”. Instead they have been using the term PCN which is a common acronym for “penalty charge notice”, for example in the claim:

PCN REF: REF4967111970”

According to the British Parking Association Code of practice, update V6 October 2015 (which would be the version in power at the time of the alleged offence) - see https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

 

14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.

 

Clearly the claimant does not regard this code of practice as applying to them (but then again they do not describe themselves as a car parking company). I believe that the claimant has deliberately and repeatedly used the term penalty charge notice and various other threats in an attempt to make me assume that they have some statutory power to enforce fines and penalties on me. They do not have such powers and trying to make someone believe that they do so and using it in evidence for a court case to claim money is a criminal offence.

 

 

 

I did actually continue in my defense, this is a bit frivolous, but it may end up being read out in court and if Civil Enforcement were to appear I want to watch them cringe! (Note CCBC is the court that upheld Civil Enforcement's attempt to apply a PCN on me).

 

Under civil contract law, CCBC cannot apply any of the claimant’s fines, penalties, PCNs or whatever upon me (and that is regardless of any assumed contract). The only payment that CCBC can enforce me to pay for actual losses only.

 

For example, if I were sick of people allowing their dogs to fowl my front lawn, I might be inclined to post notices all over my lawn stating in large letters stating “Dog owners: do not allow your dog to fowl my lawn. Penalty for doing so - £1000”.

I could take a picture of an owner allowing their dog to fowl my lawn right in front of the one of my notices. I could then ask the owner to pay my fine (as long I did not threatened them or try to make them assume that I had any statutory right to do this). The dog owner could simply ignore all my claims. If I were to take them to court with all my evidence, the maximum penalty a court could enforce the dog owner to pay me is the cost of a handful of grass seed.

 

The claimant’s “PCN” used in the claim is actually an unenforceable fee notice. The claimant needs to be very careful that they ensure that anyone that they choose to send such notices to understand this. Perhaps they could write:

Civil Enforcement wish to invite you to pay an unenforceable fee notice for parking on some private land. Note that we do NOT assume any statutory rights to enforce you to pay this and we are claiming damages of £0. As such, you are quite entitled to ignore this letter”.

 

If CCBC, thought that all details of the claim were valid, they could have ruled in the claimant’s favour and enforced me to pay them £0 for damages caused.

 

If you want to be pedantic and show that you have some understanding of the law and due legal processes you can refer to:

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06

 

The court will not like this as you are starting to tell them what rules they are allowed to apply to you. However, it is clear that in PCN claims, they should actually be reverting to civil contract law and so can only order a defendant to pay for actually damages caused by breach of contract (and not any fines or fees that may by outlined in that contract).

 

If only more people started pointing this out to the courts, they would be become very reluctant to ever get involved in upholding case involving parking on private land as clearly courts and Judges do not want to be seen contravening the rules that they must operate under.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't use the word fine nor penalty in any of their paperwork .so the above is irrelevant and went out the window in about 2014 ...years ago.

please don't use it in any defence or WS, worthless twaddle that simply adds confusion

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case they did use the term PCN.

And KFC did use the term "fine". 

Unfortunately for them, they are scuppered at the first hurdle.

 

I believe that many car parking companies do still resort to using such terms.

 

And it is always worth while pointing out that the claimant actually does not have any statutory rights to try to enforce a fee/fine/payment upon you.

They all do it!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

all PPC use the letters PCN, thats what it is a Parking Charge Notice..they are quite entitled too.

 

The Claimant CEL did not use the word Fine , KFC innocently did and are not the claimant so is totally irrelevant information toward the claimant claim.

 

i would not be using any of that in your last post in any defence nor any Witness Statement.

 

the text has now been removed to stop it being used/copied.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the terms and conditions of the British Parking Association that I directly quoted above, but for some reason you have deleted, parking companies should not use the term PCN. If the PPC is a member of this association (and many are) whenever they use the term PCN they are contravening their own associations rules. It is indeed worthwhile pointing that out to a court. You may state as above that PCN is a "Parking Charge Notice". That's your personal opinion. 

 

However, many people would see PCN as meaning "Penalty Charge Notice" as the police and traffic wardens use the term PCN to mean this. So by using the term PCN, the claimant is trying to make the defendant assume that they actually have the statuary powers to issues parking tickets and fines like the police and traffic wardens do. However, they do not have such powers.

 

Sorry I'm only try to help but clearly you don't want any advice posted here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are quite entitled to use the abbreviation PCN, the fact that their old boys club, might recommend against it is irrelevant, they are not the law and do not produce the rules...not sure where you are getting that idea from, a parking association do not make rules gov'd by laws.

 

whatever 'other people' might see or interpret is immaterial to your case

 

as i said 

worthless twaddle.

no point in going there at all in your defence nor WS.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus its a County Court, not Crown Court,  for Civil Invoices.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil cases are initially dealt with in County Courts such as CBCN and the rules that govern their procedures are as I posted earlier but for some reason dx110uk deleted my post as he thought it inappropriate that a consumer action group should know about procedures posted on a government website related to courts controlling civil law!

 

I am currently disputing the case this ruling in Peterbourgh Crown Court.

 

What is wrong with the site team here? Do they not like useful information about court procedures and civil law?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes Peterborough is a Combined Court Centre, so both Civil and Criminal Courts in same complex.  This is all a bit academic now as m1n1me has submitted their WS, and it covers the required bases, VCS's on the other hand is a rambling mess highlighting irelevances, and even confusing locations and type of location. If the author is present, they could well find their WS forensically dissected and trashed.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I think I may have added to the confusion here as I was referring to some details that I have submitted to Peterborough Court today and clearly if we are talking about m1n1me and VCS's cases all at the same time there may be confusion! What I can do is start a brand new topic with only my details and then you can tear me to pieces if you like! However, I shall wait until I see what the court has to say and then at least I may provide advise on what went well and what was regarded as "worthless twaddle"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be better if you started your own thread that way then will be no confusion, as yours likely different circumstances.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please

Then we can move these posts to it too

Glad to help

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Own thread created

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course by using the abbreviation PCN the fleecers are trying to seed confusion in motorists' minds that they have in fact received a penalty charge notice.  I agree they are crooks. 

 

However, I haven't seen one case where a judge has thrown out a PPC's case due to them using PCN.  I've seen judges being a bit sarcastic about the term, that's all.  They are able to get away legally with using the term so there's no point using it in a defence.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been occasions when some of the lesser known parking companies have issued PCNs that state "Penalty Charge Notice" rather than "Parking Charge Notice". If you have received one of the former tickets then yes you will win for that reason. 

Many MPs and Judges have been rather disparaging about the similarities of the private parking companies imitiating the

official Penalty Charge Notice but you appear to be the first person recently who is using it as part of your defence. I hope you will return and let us know the outcome. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...