CPP ANPR PCN - Crown Wharf, Walsall. WS2 8LL

[Shelley181146]

Following your post on what information you require here goes;

 

1) Date of infringement: 15/05/2021

2) Date on the NTK (this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date).

NTK Dated 27/05/2021,

3) Date received

Today - 05/06/2021 - no markings on envelope to prove posting etc.

4) Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedom Act 2012? 

No

5) Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes

6) Have you appealed?

No

7) Who is the parking company?

CP Plus

Where exactly (car park name & town)

Crown Wharf, Walsall. WS2 8LL

9) Official Body 

BPA

 

Will scan both sides of document and will post as single PDF file once personal info removed shortly.

 

[dx100uk]

urm looks like this used to be parking eye?

 

PE ANPR PCN - Crown Wharf Walsall - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

[Shelley181146]

Apologies for the delay, I am having great difficulties trying to scan the document - however, I have taken photograpghs and when trying to upload them it says they are too large, but then I note the accepted file types

 

Please can you advise how I can get these images to fit and upload? TIA

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Have a read of our upload guide, that should help.

 

HB

[Shelley181146]

Car Park.pdf

 

Finally managed to attach, hope this is legible.

 

We have appealed today (just within the 14 days of 2nd reminder) and await their polite decline to agree our appeal and will post up again when it arrives.

 

Thanks Peeps

 

 

[dx100uk]

where do we say on any thread here to appeal?

 

you've probably just admitted who the driver was and lost your protection under POFA2012?

 

[lookinforinfo]

The NTK is not compliant so the keeper is not liable if the driver doesn't pay. If you were the driver and admitted it in your appeal then you may have lost nothing. If you were not the driver and you didn't reveal who was driving then as long as it stays that way you are in the clear. 

[Shelley181146]

Dx100 you pointed me to a previous case in your post of 5th June and I followed that advice.

 

Hadn't parked up, so no breach!

 

Lookingforinfo, how does the NTK not comply? Please explain 

[FTMDave]

Wires have got crossed here.

 

dx was only pointing out that the car park is known to us and used to be run by Parking Eye.  The advice in that thread to appeal from way back in January 2017 is now well out of date.

 

The fleecers are supposed to get their tripe to you within 14 days under POFA, but failed to do so.

 

In your appeal did you out the driver?  If so it was a mistake.  However, hardly a fatal one.  We have a mountain of cases here where the driver was outed naively in an appeal, but the motorist still went on to hammer the PPC.

 

What do the fleecers reckon you did wrong then?  Was it a P&D car park and you didn't pay?  Was that 'cos you couldn't find a space?  If you can briefly describe what happened it would help.

 

 

[Shelley181146]

The driver is 'outed' naively,  sorry, crossed wires!

The driver had been looking for a space, but had a 3 month old baby in the car screaming so abandoned the trip.

The driver had not been to this area before, but relatives had said it had been 90 minutes free parking, but as they hadn't parked was surprised to have received this.

Naturally distracted by events in the vehicle they weren't looking for signage on P&D.

 

[FTMDave]

Don't worry, you still have quite enough to see the fleecers off.  Have a look at this case  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

 

It would be very useful if your relatives could go to the car park the same day & time as you did, and photograph it full (plus takes snaps of the signage).

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN is invalid for two reasons at least.

 

The first one is that the PCN must arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence. Even if it was posted on the 27th May, two working days are estimated to be the delivery time so that would be Monday the 31st May as Saturday is not classed as a working day. It is doubtful that it was posted on the 27th considering the date you actually received it. 

 

The second reason is that if you look at The Protection of Freedoms Act 2007  paragraph 9 section 2 [f]  the PCN wording does not comply with what it should say in the ACT. the act says it must comply so that means that the keeper is not liable to pay if the driver doesn't. However as it appears that the driver has admitted driving then that avenue has gone.

[Shelley181146]

Nothing has been received since, so it maybe wishful thinking that this has gone away?

[dx100uk]

very wishful

 

they have 6yrs .....dont move without informing them of new address

[Shelley181146]

6 years? Really?

 

I wouldn't have known that!

[dx100uk]

having been here 10yrs+ i'm sure you met up with the 6yrs statute of limitation many times.

[Shelley181146]

So the appeal has sent their response, typed below 'verbatum'

 

"Dear Sir/madam,

 

Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.

 

The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered.  Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly.

We are placing this Charge on hold for 14 days from the date of this email to allow you to provide the details requested.

 

Yours faithfully"

 

When we appealed the following was our response:

 

"The driver drove around looking for a space for 24 minutes but was unable to secure one so left without parking. There has been no breach as there was no opportunity to read the signage and consider it and agree to be bound by its terms and also as the demand is for a parking charge, this is not applicable as there was no parking event to incur such a charge"

 

It appears that we didnt disclose the driver details so how do you suggest we respond to this please?

[dx100uk]

you dont reply nor tell them ever who was driving.

 

await if/when they send a letter of claim

[lookinforinfo]

As their NTK is not compliant if you are the keeper you are not liable to pay their speculative invoice. And while the driver may be liable it their name is not divulged  then they cannot be pursued.

That doesn't mean that they won't still pursue you. Could you please show us what you said in your appeal and perhaps we can nip your case in the bud or should they go to court you could earn a fair amount of compensation.

[Shelley181146]

We wont be divulging the driver details and the response we stated in the appeal is shown in #17 above.

 

I'm intrigued!

 

[Shelley181146]

Hi,

 

Lookinforinfo, please can you expand on your earlier post re "The Protection of Freedoms Act 2007  paragraph 9 section 2 [f]  the PCN wording does not comply with what it should say in the ACT. the act says it must comply so that means that the keeper is not liable to pay if the driver doesn't."

 

I have attempted to look of this but it refers to Act 2012 - On another matter I am now dealing with, this maybe extremely useful please.

 

Many thanks

[dx100uk]

we need to see the EXACT wording of the appeal for pofa to be relevant or not

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry, I should have said 2012 not 2007. But here is the wording and in this section it does say that their NTK MUST sate what is said on the Act

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

As they have missed out " (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)"that in itself is sufficient to rule out the PCN as non compliant. But they have also delivered the NTK too late so they haven't complied with all  the applicable conditions either. Doubtless in time we will find other things that they haven't done which will make your case stronger . It does mean then that you as the keeper are not liable for the alleged debt which is not money owed to them anyway. As the driver didn't pay, they were trespassing and that means that only the land owner can sue for trespass not the monkey. [That is from the old saying about organ grinders and monkeys.]