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

[Intrepid]

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 January 14 by Intrepid

[FTMDave]

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

[Intrepid]

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 January 14 by Intrepid

[FTMDave]

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.

[lookinforinfo]

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.

[Intrepid]

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.

[lookinforinfo]

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.

[Intrepid]

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 January 18 by Intrepid

[brassnecked]

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

[Intrepid]

Is there a way to find out which telephone numbers a company uses to contact you? As Redwood Collections is a private company a FOI request is not an option. I am receiving multiple calls from different mobile numbers that do not leave an answer message which I suspect is related to this company.

I'd expect that a registered keeper's address details are available from the DVLA but where they can locate a contact number is perplexing as well as distressing and is starting to feel like a campaign of harassment instead of a genuine attempt to establish contact and resolve a dispute.

Edited February 1 by Intrepid

[dx100uk]

well answer them then can't hurt you.

it's probably the india call centre scammers wanting to fix MS windows security issues, sell you a warranty for white goods you dont have or alike.

 

redwood collections aren't one of the usual dca's involved in speculative invoices and even then we don't see phonecalls on many SI threads that are only at your very early stage.

 

type in redwood and you'll see its mainly student fees.

 

dx

 

[Intrepid]

Thank you for the info regarding the company and the normal progression of SI threads.

I won't be answering, if someone is serious about making contact they would leave their name, reason for the call and their contact details. Failing that I would expect a written letter.

[dx100uk]

usually takes a few days if it is Indian scammers to get results

 

whocallsme.com

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

You can sometimes find out who called you be googling "who Called me" and putting in the number that called you.  Quite often the site does find who it was and you are then free to block the number if you wish.

[brassnecked]

You can also add comments about the number to help other's who might be a target for their random dialler system.  I regularly get Microsoft Kevin  hoping to help me fix my Microsoft Windows I don't have on my Linux box. I am recording the calls ready for a Youtube video of his finest spoutings.

[honeybee13]

I look forward to that, BN.

 

My mother in law regularly gets calls from 'Microsoft'. She keeps them talking for as long as she can [she's lonely] and then lets them know that she doesn't own a computer.

[Intrepid]

Already done, the land line numbers had lots of reports but the mobiles as of yet nothing.

[Intrepid]

Letter received from Debt Recovery Plus.

It does not appear to be a letter before claim.

I have prepared a response for if/when I receive one.

UKPC - DRP - Letter 22.02.22 - Redacted.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Write to UKPC advising them that their PCN is not PoFA compliant [don't tell them why] and advise them that you were not the driver.Therefore any further letters from UKPC or any of their cronies will be treated as a breach of your GDPR. So Cease and Desist from further correspondence.

[Intrepid]

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

I don't think they are entitled to receive any information as to my status in reference to the driver, it is quite simply for them to prove.

Where do you think it best to send the letter?

 

They indicate on their NTK to write to:

UK Parking Control Ltd

PO Box 1608

High Wycombe

HP12 9FN

 

Are we to believe they read any correspondence sent to their PO box?

 

The registered office on companies house of UK Parking Control is actually:

UK Parking Control Limited

Union House

111 New Union Street

Coventry

England

CV1 2NT

They have 2 people listed:

Amanda Joy Williams (Secretary) and presumably wife of

Rupert John Williams (Director) who holds majority voting rights.

 

I think I am minded to write to Rupert at Union House, presumably the director and majority shareholder has an efficient way of handling their mail at their registered office.

 

[Intrepid]

Draft letter.

 

Quote

UK Parking Control Limited

Union House

111 New Union Street

Coventry

CV1 2NT
 

Date: XXXX
 

Reference: XXXX

Dear Mr Williams,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 8th January 2022.

 

Your Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

Any contact from UK Parking Control Limited or any of the third parties with whom you have unlawfully shared my data is a breach of the statutory rights afforded to me under the General Data Protection Regulations and Data Protection Act 2018.

 

You and your affiliates are instructed to cease and desist from contacting me further regarding this matter.

Yours

 

Edited March 2 by Intrepid

[lookinforinfo]

No they are not entitled to it. But by sending it they then have no reason to continue to writing to you. You were not the driver and there is no liability on you to pay the alleged breach. So any further correspondence from them is a breach of your GDPR which would leave them liable for hundreds in compensation to you.

[Intrepid]

If there is no liability as the driver because they can't prove who the driver is, and there is no liability as the keeper because the NTK isn't compliant as well as a myriad of other defences then none of this is affected by giving them information they are not entitled to and remains for them to prove.

I disagree with the premise that a breach of the Data Protection Act occurs after further correspondence is received following the keeper writing to them and denying they were the driver.

Their breach of the Data Protection Act is brought about by the fact that they have no lawful basis to apply to the DVLA to access the personal data of the registered keeper.

Either their breach has already occurred or it has not occurred at all. In my oppinion the breach occurred when UKPC applied to access personal data with no lawful basis for doing so.

In my oppinion their breach of the Data Protection Act is proven when they lose their claim in court not before, their breach of the act does not hinge upon me writing to them and giving them any detail relating to the status of the driver.

 

In fact confirming any status as to the driver may inadvertently substantiate their position that they were entitled to apply for the details of the keeper on this basis.
 

Edited March 3 by Intrepid

[lookinforinfo]

I 'll try again.

The reason your car was ticketed was because there was no permit visible. If as they believed your car was parked in a Permit area then they were justified in issuing a PCN. If as you think they made a mistake and your car was not parked in a Permit area then writing to you was a breach of your GDPR.

 

However until the siting of the car has been clarified they are entitled to pursue you.  My suggestion to send the Cease and Desist letter was to put them off from writing further to you and that would include debt collectors and solicitors . You may think that the mere act of sending the first PCN was a breach of your GDPR which may be questionable if you were not present with the driver on the day your car was ticketed.

if you send the letter there is no question that any further correspondence would definitely be a breach of your GDPR. 

The decision is yours especially if you are happy to put up with a succession 0f letters pursuing you.

[Intrepid]

I have already posted the letter above, I agree that it may have the desired effect you state and am grateful for the suggestion. I also think it will be useful to present to a judge as evidence for any eventual claim or counterclaim for a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA").

In my oppinion their breach of the DPA is not based solely on the siting of the car, it will depend on whether they are sucessful in any eventual claim. For example if the car was sited where they claim but their signage was inadequate then they still had no lawful basis for their claim and thus their application of data.

"You may think that the mere act of sending the first PCN was a breach of your GDPR which may be questionable if you were not present with the driver on the day your car was ticketed."

Would you mind expanding on that, I am not clear on how the presence of someone with the driver could affect an individuals rights under the DPA?

"if you send the letter there is no question that any further correspondence would definitely be a breach of your GDPR. "

I am still not clear on this point. What effect does sending the letter have on an individuals rights under the DPA? A breach is an unlawful act and I do not see how an actor receiving a letter has any effect on this. Either they are entitled to use my data or they are not, the fact they have already used it is indisputable and sending them a letter does not affect this but is a way of putting them on notice.

A claimant sends a letter of claim because they believe there is already a basis for their claim, the act of sending the letter or the reading of it by the recepient does not affect the validity of the cause for the claim, it simply acts as notice to the recipient that the sender intends to enforce their claim.

With that in mind I think we are in agreement that the letter sent is a useful way of putting them on notice that I intend to enforce my rights under the DPA.

I'm not trying to simply dispute your point of view, I am trying to fully understand it to ensure I get things correct going forward.

DRP:

 

I also have reason to believe DRP are in breach of the DPA as they have failed entirely to meet the requirements laid down in GDPR Article 14.

 

It appears according to their letter that they applied for my personal data from the DVLA, however I am not sure under what lawful basis this was done.

I can understand UKPC think they have a lawful basis to apply for personal data but I am totally unclear as to whether this right can be transferred to a third party.

A SAR is on its way to the DVLA to find out more.

Edited March 4 by Intrepid