Jump to content


UKPC Windscreen PCN - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER - NCP Car Park?


Recommended Posts

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement?

07/12/21
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?]

No

 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

Yes
 

What date is on it?

08/01/22
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

Yes - The photographic evidence is inconclusive please see my additional comments below.

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?]

Yes
 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

N/A
 

5 Who is the parking company?

UK Parking Control LTD
 

6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?
The alleged location on the windscreen slip and NTK states 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER

The driver of the vehicle at the time is under the impression that they parked at 3 Parkside, Crawley, RH10 1ER

 

Additional comments / potential mitigating circumstances.

 

1. The windscreen slip states "Parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit".

2. Parking was paid for at the time stipulated on the speculative invoice - receipts have been retained.

3. There was torrential heavy rain on-going at the time the car was parked and upon returning to the vehicle.
4. The car park was severley flooded in areas which could have osbcured bay markings.

5. The windscreen slip was not discovered for several days until after it was allegedly left placed on the windscreen and was eventually found stuffed at the bottom of the windscreen under the lip at the top of bonnet.

6. If everything UK Parking Control allege is correct then it would still appear to be totally unreasonable to have some bays in a car park subject to permit control and not others. This could clearly cause confusion to parking customers.

 

The attachment below contains the following.

1. A redacted copy of the windscreen slip

2. A redacted copy of the NTK.
3. A redacted copy of the photographic evidence disclosed by UK Parking Control on www.paycharge.co.uk

4. A redacted copy of the payment receipt

UKPC - CAG Combined PDF.pdf

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can see on Google Earth, The Martletts seems to be a pedestrian-only shopping street where it would have been impossible to park.  Am I right?

 

Whereas Parkside seems to be, guess what, at the side of a park with, I suspect, an NCP part and a residents' part (see image).

 

I see UKCPS have included their usual tiny, carp signage.

 

 

4 Parkside - Google Maps — Mozilla Firefox 14_01_2022 23_30_02.pdf

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

Yes I agree. No doubt if UKPC bring an action they will attempt to claim a portion of the parking to the rear of the buildings belongs to the buildings with an address located on the other side of the road.

 

Either way if it is confusing enough for people to make a mistake I think that is evidence in and of itself the signage is not fit for purpose.

I will of course check for planning permission, however I note the signage they have evidenced is located on the side of a building, so may not fall under the council's jurisdiction and may be erected with permission of the building owner. Either way they will be put to strict proof they have permission to erect the signage on display.

 

The actual situation may be made somewhat clearer using a top down view of Google maps on a perfectly sunny day, but unsurprisingly I doubt the driver or any driver at all breaks out the reconnaissance drone prior to making their parking decisions, particularly on a stormy rainy day.

 

I missed your point above that some of the car park may have been allocated to residents. If this is the case then the address is incorrect and that is the end of the matter.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPC Windscreen PCN - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER - NCP Car Park?

Things you have going for you.

 

1.  They accuse you of parking where you didn't, in fact where you've never parked in your life.

2.  They say you parked from 15:57 to 15:57.  Well, there is a 10-minute grace period.  Who is to say you didn't get out in the rain, read the signs, realise you had made a mistake, and moved your car within the ten minutes to the NCP bit.

3.  Their signage is rubbish, small and hidden away.

4.  That is done deliberately, to catch out people who think they are parking in the NCP bit.  It is predatory behaviour, which according to their Code of Practise they shouldn't engage in.  Knowing full well motorists could confuse the two, and to protect residents, their signage should emphasise it is not the NCP bit.

5.  You were a trespasser, and only the landowner can sue for trespass.

 

In other words don't pay them a penny, but prepare for half the Amazon arriving through your letter box and to have to put up a fight with them.

  • Like 1

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

The NTK is not compliant with PoFA so they are unable to transfer the liability of their so called debt from the driver to you the keeper. It is important that you do not divulge  who was driving therefore. It is much more difficult to prove who was driving than who the keeper is as so many people are legally able to drive your car-all they need is a current British insurance certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @lookinforinfo thank you for your response.

 

I have searched around for the possible reason the NTK is not compliant but could not come up with anything beyond that indicated above by FTMDave which is the NTK fails to specifiy a period of parking and merely states a time that the vehicle was allegedly present at the location stipulated.

Perhaps you could kindly give me a clue if there is another reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under PoFA  Schedule 4 s8 2  the PCN must comply with the following rules .

Further down the list of rules  is  s8 2  [f] and if you compare their PCN wording with the PoFA wording  you will see they have missed out "  (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met]  "

 

So with that wording missing and the period of time missing they cannot transfer the liability for the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. That missing phrase may seem minor to you but when in Law there is a statement that something must be done then it must be done. If not then the wording is not compliant.

 

That is why we say it is best not to challenge that PCN at the outset since the keeper can inadvertently alert the crooks to who was driving. Without knowing who was driving  it is very difficult to convince the Court to accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. It is up to  Highview to prove who was the driver they cannot assume it was the keeper.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed call from "Redwood Collections". I imagine it is relating to this although I am not sure how they would have obtained my number.

I understand your point, obviously they will attempt to claim in court that they were justifiable in transferring liability to the keeper and I will point out, amoungst everything else, the non-compliance of their NTK.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not too diffuicult to bat thgem away with no POFA, as they usually try arguing old discredited cases as authority.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...