Group Nexus ANPR PCN - Westside Retail Park, Guiseley Leeds LS20 9NE ***Cancelled by Retail Park***

[Woodys Wonders]

My daughter received a letter yesterday regarding an overstay at a local retail park. He had taken her disabled Grandma shopping & for Lunch in Costa, so they have receipts etc.

Is it out of time as she only received it in the post yesterday? 

What is the best thing to do now with it?

Thank You

 

 

2021-11-08 Group Nexus PCN for Incident 2021-10-29.pdf

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Could you let us have the answers to the forum sticky please, then we can start to advise you on this.

 

 

HB

 

[Woodys Wonders]

1 Date of the infringement 29/10/2021

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 08/11/2021

3 Date received 17/11/2021

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] I will check when i get home, didn't bring letter to work

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

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? Group Nexus

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Westside Retail Park, Guiseley Leeds LS20 9NE

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

[FTMDave]

To establish keeper liability their invoice has to be received 14 days after the "offence", so they are out of time.

 

However, they have lied and pretended to send the invoice on 8 November.  Is the envelope postmarked?

[dx100uk]

pdf's swapped

[Woodys Wonders]

No it’s not, it is a white envelope, like the type the bank send you 

[lookinforinfo]

Apart from the PCN not arriving within the required time limits for the keeper to be liable for the driver's alleged breach, there are two more reasons that the PCN does not comply with PoFA. Both of them are in relation to the wording.

The first one is

that the PCN does not even suggest that the keeper is liable thus not following Schedule4 s9 [f].

The second fault is

that the PCN says that you have 28 days to pay the £100. 28 days from when?

The date of the PCN?

The date the PCN arrived at your property?

The date you read it when you returned from holiday?

Sloppy.

As they cannot pursue the keeper for the alleged debt and they should not assume that the keeper is the driver, strictly speaking they not be writing to the keeper.

It is important therefore not to let them know who was driving. 

The usual way of revealing the name is when the keeper writes to appeal for example and says I parked rather than the driver parked. 

[Woodys Wonders]

Thank you, hopefully I have uploaded everything you need

[honeybee13]

It looks like it, yes.

 

HB

[Woodys Wonders]

should I therefore appeal without revealing the driver & provide proof of shopping at various stores (have receipts) & lunching at Costa (again receipts) or so I just ignore it?

[honeybee13]

We almost never advise appealing to the PPC, they don't listen. I wonder if @lookinforinfowas thinking of writing to one of the shops to see if they would intervene or just giving an example of the problems we've seen on other threads with identifying the driver.

 

Hopefully they'll be along later to clarify.

 

HB

[brassnecked]

No Don't Appeal, it will fail they never allow appeals, it also gives them information they will use if they do try a Claim If you use the POFA non compliance as a appeal they will still refuse it, and have an idea how any court claim would be defended.

[FTMDave]

I think LFI was giving an example of what not to do.

 

If this place is local to you or your daughter, it would be useful to go back and take photos of the signage.  Sometimes the signage is decent in these car parks, but often they put up a small number of signs with the T&Cs in tiny writing in the hope of entrapping the motorist. 

 

 

[FTMDave]

I've had a look at the retail park site  https://westsideshoppingpark.com/

 

They mention a 3-hour limit for parking, which is what your daughter has fallen foul of, but also that this is a recent changed and the T&Cs are shown on the signs - so the signs had better be pretty damn good.

 

I see it is Savills who administer the place, so i would e-mail them  [email protected]  and lay it on thick that (a) an elderly disabled person was involved and extra time has to be allowed for the disabled and (b) any "overstay" was due to consuming meals and thus bringing business to the retail park.  You demand Savills call the fleecers off.  You might get absolutely nowhere but nothing ventured ...

 

Do not identify the driver.  Say a party of people visited the retail park including an elderly disabled person and then later the driver (third person) got the demand for £100.

[barrowboy]

Sorry but you should always appeal group nexus pcns as they are non pofa and a doddle to beat. The advice above is wrong not to appeal sorry.

 

Send this and they will cancel it 100% they also do when challenged on keeper liability.

 

This is an appeal by the keeper. No driver details will be given.  Please dont try the usual group nexus trick of asking for driver details(as your way of trying to get round a non Pofa notice). This wont work and will be ignored.

Notice to keeper is non pofa so no keeper liability

This is an auto win at POPLA.

Please cancel or issue a Popla code where you will auto withdraw.

End

 

Thats it. Log it at www.appealpcn.co.uk and select "pcn contains incorrect details"

Will be cancelled within 2 weeks

 

Your wrong sorry. Group Nexus/cp plus always cancel when challenged on Pofa issues

Edited November 19, 2021 by barrowboy

[FTMDave]

barrowboy, can you please link to evidence of what you're saying?

 

Considering that on the thread you have going in another part of the forum you lost 9 grand and ended up with a CCJ after believing what a bloke in a pub told you, I think hard evidence is needed before forum advice is changed.

[dx100uk]

not that bloke down his pub again poking their nose in via Chinese whispers is it...

[barrowboy]

I would suggest you check with MSE and others who deal with group nexus tickets.

So easy to beat.

 

They have never used POFA and simply withdraw on the basis on a pofa based appeal.

Same as smart parking and apoca

 

Now you can chose to believe that or just exist in a bubble

 

[lookinforinfo]

To be fair to barrowboy there should be no reason for the OP to be pursued as the parking company through their own actions have ruled out the possibility of transferring the liability from the driver to the keeper. I did say that in post 7 above.

 

And it is not that the parking company can lie about their lack of keeper liability-it is very clear they have failed. So to take them on at POPLA will not affect any later actions that may occur in Court should POPLA fail. And if worded correctly with no drivers name mentioned POPLA may decide to cancel the PCN. Even should POPLA not cancel it, no harm has been done as the OP still has an excellent chance of winning by using the same argument in Court that they used with POPLA.

 

Moreover, it may well be that in Court there may be several other reasons that come to light that only strengthen OPs case. Should the OP be successful it will shorten the worry of the OP and if we can also  get  others to win where keeper liability has failed it should shorten the time that successful  members donate to CAG. Win win all round.

 

I would just add the proviso that appeals are monitored by the Site team to avoid any chance of driver identification.

 

[Woodys Wonders]

I am getting a little confused now. I will email Savills as suggested. But then do I appeal (in the third person of course) or not?

if not am I just ignoring it?

[barrowboy]

Its that simple! Dont change it, edit it etc.

 

I guarantee your ticket will be cancelled in due course. Ignore it you risk a court claim via DCB Legal in future. 

 

But if you use the text above then its the end of the matter. It wont go to POPLA as the operator will cancel .

You have nothing to lose.

Edited November 20, 2021 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[lookinforinfo]

Woodys Wonders we usually prefer not to appeal private PCNs fro several reasons.

 

The first

is that the appeal can inadvertently reveal that the keeper and the driver are the same person

 

The second

is that the parking companies will refuse to accept your appeal but may well alter their Witness statement either by slanting their argument to prove your argument is wrong. And if they can't do that, they just lie to prove they were right.

 

And while those are the principal reasons we don't think that revealing our best arguments in advance mean that we can hit them much harder with little chance of them rebutting should we get to the Witness Statement stage.

 

Appealing to the IAS is virtually a waste of time since they have no interest in allowing appeals. POPLA is different in so far as there is a better chance of winning but always with caveats as if the appeal is refused the motorist often appears to take that as final and may as well pay, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

POPLA work from a narrower remit than the Courts so just because one loses on appeal, motorists can still go on and win in Court. For that reason we prefer not to appeal early as sometimes the parking companies don't take the matter any further  and if they do go to court we have a much better chance of winning in Court.

 

Worth bearing in mind too that if we didn't win in Court we also wouldn't have won with POPLA.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[Woodys Wonders]

So are you suggesting I just ignore it for now? 

[lookinforinfo]

It's not quite so simple Barrowboy.  When no keeper liability is involved, MSE appear to use that as a starter and go into it in  a long winded way- they also seem to throw everything else in to the pot at the same time. Their appeals can last for a couple of hundred pages and putting parking companies to strict proof with certain items.

 

When faced with a mountain of paperwork that requires answers to satisfy POPLA plus providing strict proof on several things, smaller parking companies especially may just write off that PCN as not worth the time dealing with it.  Which is all well and good for the driver when it works even though we don't learn whether they just gave up or whether something in the appeal justified them not continuing.

 

The bigger problem is when POPLA doesn't accept the appeal. Then the parking company knows the motorists arguments and has time prior to issuing an LBC to rebut the motorists appeal since they know that just because POPLA rejected it, that does not mean the Courts will see the arguments in the same light. But when we wait until the LBC and the WS have been issued, we are in a far stronger place to hit them with everything we have got and gives them next to no time before they are in Court. 

 

Speaking for myself I would like to test the water as it were in such cases as Woodys where keeper liability has not been utilised. But it would be an appeal just based on that factor -no keeper liability so why are the parking company still pursuing the keeper when they cannot assume the driver and the keeper are the same person. If it succeeds then we could consider other motorists in the same boat but it has to be understood that the keeper has not already blown it by inadvertently giving away who the driver was. 

But that decision would have to be taken by the Site team.

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

WW,

 

sometimes there can be different opinions on the forum, which is fair enough.

 

Only you can decide what to do.  For all the reasons LFI has pointed out, from our experience appealing has very rarely led to a positive outcome for the motorist and very often has led to big problems.

 

If you do go down the road of the appeal, in no circumstance indicate who the driver was.

 

Write to Savills as well.