PCM 2*ANPR PCN's - gym terminal faulty? - overstay - JD Gym - Manningham Retail Park, Bradford

[ElDiego10]

Yes it was him and kept short and sweet. I’m not hopeful tbh, but no harm in experimenting. 

I’m trying to upload the sign but need to convert it to pdf. So I’ll do that tomorrow. 
 

thanks. 

[dx100uk]

19 hours ago, ElDiego10 said:

I have some pictures of the sign but can’t upload it. Will figure doing out. 

read upload

dx

[lookinforinfo]

I notice you are trying to claim your dad's PCN arrived late. From the time of the date on the PCN it is deemed to have arrived two working days later which is what a Court would agree unless you can prove that it was late and I don't think that postal delivery strikes will alter the two day rule so you will have to come up with a different argument.

 

Such as the PCN is not compliant with PoFA because

1] on the PCN the words below  in brackets were not included.

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

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (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;

2] the maximum that can be charged is £100 and they are threatening £170 

3] they also state that this is inclusive of recovery action which is NOT in accordance with Schedule 4.

4] they have failed to specify the parking period. While they have mentioned the arrival and departure times on the photos this is not the same thing since their times include driving from the entrance to a parking spot and driving from the parking spot later to drive out of the car park. So the driving part inside the car park cannot be included in the parking period.

 

[FTMDave]

I think this is moot LFI with the father's ticket, as the OP wants to out himself as the driver to get his dad out of the loop.

 

Might be very useful for the other ticket though.

[ElDiego10]

I thought it’ I’d just experiment with that one tbh. 
 

The gym has said best they can do is £36 each ticket. What’s the consensus for this? Ignore and go all the way? And only come back if/when I get court papers?
 

thanks. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by ElDiego10

[FTMDave]

To be able to make a decision it would be very useful if you would upload the photos you have taken of the signs.

[ElDiego10]

Apologies for the delay.

 

Attached now.

 

wall sign.pdf

[FTMDave]

There's not really a definitive answer to your question.

 

If the gym have got this deal - a big if - then they've essentially halved the PCN amount.  Pay £72 and the matter will go away.  If you don't it will increase to £200 and the fleecers will destroy half the Amazon sending you letters that are meant to be threatening.

 

We're pretty biased, as we deal with these vile companies every day.  We'd prefer you fought them!  It's likely the tablet malfunctions.  PCM have done their usual trick with the sign of putting a mountain of text, including the gym bit, hoping motorists won't notice it.

 

Your call.  If you want to pay, fair enough, if you want to fight we'll back you all the way.

[ElDiego10]

So with the Peugeot, I paid that for £30 - nothing much... but they haven't done anything with the BMW's. 

 

As you said, the little letter about time was sent and duly rejected by them, they gave 14 days and received letter today saying that its gone up to £100 - if not paid they might take it to court etc. 

 

I'd prefer to get it sorted quickly like the Peugeot, but, if they don't then I'll just play the long game, ignore ignore ignore until court papers come and keep this updated for other members who may be in a similar situation. 

 

Thanks - p.s. hope you're all enjoying the coronation.

 

Tried to edit my post but it went a bit weird and the edit button is gone, I just added the following:

 

I will speak with the gym again today to see what they say, probably won't do much till Tuesday - if they are being funny about it (either party) then I'll send a letter telling them who the driver was next week.

[lookinforinfo]

Telling them who the driver was will not end the situation and their bill will be £100 Not telling them the driver's name will lead to the same length of time to come to a conclusion as not telling them but with a much better chance of not paying a penny.

 

Reason being that the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms  Act 2012 and therefore your father cannot be held liable for the charge . Only the driver can and as thousands of drivers are allowed to drive other people's cars  they will have a hard job  trying to get a win in Court  should it ever get that far.

The important thing is not to give them the name of the driver.

[ElDiego10]

I just got another PCN from the gym, this time in the Peugeot again and I did input my number plate… couldn’t make this up, I’ve since left the awful gym and management there. 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

Could you start a new thread for the second ticket please and give us the same information as you did at the beginning of this one?

HB

[ElDiego10]

Hi all - received this letter today.

 

Only thing I'm having that is a little cause for concern is my dad isn't too impressed and doesn't want it coming in his name or having to go to court - whats the advice for this please?

I have told him that I am getting assistance from CAG who know their stuff in and out so not to worry, but doesn't always work.

 

Thanks!

TRACEBMW.pdf

[dx100uk]

ignore trace totally.

the only way is to dub yourself in as the driver in writing.

is that true - if not, not a good idea as if its goes to court you are lying to a judge.

On 08/05/2023 at 00:52, lookinforinfo said:

Reason being that the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms  Act 2012 and therefore your father cannot be held liable for the charge . Only the driver can and as thousands of drivers are allowed to drive other people's cars  they will have a hard job  trying to get a win in Court  should it ever get that far.

The important thing is not to give them the name of the driver.

 

[ElDiego10]

I was the driver - yes. 

[Nicky Boy]

So, turning yourself in would take Dad out of the loop, but you'd lose one leg of your defence...

[ElDiego10]

Tbf, I'm not too clued up on these issues - so whatever your advice is - I will stick to it all the way.

[dx100uk]

well as LFI says

the PCN is non compliant so liability cant be transferred to the RK (your father) no matter who the driver was and they should never know that detail as it will remove this important matter.

id go with LFI, a judge cannot attribute payment to him no matter what.

the only slight worry is what we call judge lottery. where it doesnt matter who goes to court or what they say, the judge plays golf with the claimant or their mates and its game over.

and even if that does happen as long as the judgement sum is paid within 30days the CCJ is not registered anywhere and to all intent and purpose in law never existed.

 

your call.

dx

 

[ElDiego10]

Lets go with it as is then - have sent him your reply - Thanks DX. 

 

Will update as more letters come.

[FTMDave]

Upthread didn't you say you'd informed the parking company that your dad wasn't the driver?

Please confirm exactly what communications you've had with the fleecers please.

This is all getting confusing.

[ElDiego10]

Hi FTM,

 

EDIT: Just read the letter - it does say I (my father) was not the driver, and did not ID the driver.

Edited July 10, 2023 by ElDiego10

[FTMDave]

OK, mystery solved. 

That's why the fleecers are still pursuing your father, they will do so until a driver is named, just saying he wasn't the driver is not enough.

So you have a choice to make.

1.  Your dad writes again, naming you as the driver.  He is then out of the loop.  However, everything that LFI and dx have mentioned will go in the bin and you will not be able to use the fleecers' non-compliance with POFA in any court hearing.

2.  You dad does nothing.  The PCN remains non-POFA compliant which is an excellent string to your bow if it gets as far as court.  However, your dad will receive the threats and he will be the one in court if it gets that far.

There is no half-way house here, you need to speak to your dad and decide which course of action to take, promptly.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I note you said that you informed the rogues that your father was not driving his car that day and that the PCN was out of time.

The PCN would have been addressed to your father so I hope  that even if you wrote the letter your Father signed it. if it was you then UKPC were probably right in continuing to pursue him. Who signed the letter please/

Afraid you are wrong on the PCN being out of date. If it was posted on the 22nd it is deemed to have arrived two working days later which would have been well within the 14 days. That is not to say that the PCN was compliant with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it wasn't.

Under Schedule4 S9 [2][a] it states  

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

There is no period of parking mentioned just the arrival and departure times which is not the same thing as the parking period. Driving from the entrance to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit  means that the car was not parked during those times.

Another fail is where the PCN states that they can charge for recovery action in accordance with Schedule 4 . It is nothing of the sort. In fact Schedule 4 S9 [f] 

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

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

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;

The amount mentioned under paragraph d is the amount stated on the signage. There is no mention in the Act of any additional charges being allowed and Courts throw out those extra spurious costs. They have also missed out the wording in brackets above which is a further breach of the Act.

What this means is that your father cannot be held responsible for the debt only the driver can.

So it would help if your father had signed the letter to UKPC since if he had, there was no reason for Trace to have been informed as that would be a breach of your Father's GDPR.

 

[ElDiego10]

The letter was not signed with a signature. 

The letter was in my dads name though - I'm just trying to find it now.
 

EDIT: Cant seem to find it but as post 26 on here. 

 

Thanks.

 

UPDATE: Just getting the usual barrage of spam letters.

Edited September 15, 2023 by ElDiego10

[dx100uk]

LFI didnt mean actual sig, typed is ok.

 

dx

 

On 10/07/2023 at 15:57, ElDiego10 said:

Hi FTM,

EDIT: Just read the letter - it does say I (my father) was not the driver, and did not ID the driver.