Parkingeye ANPR PCN - no return in 2hrs - received after 32 days - Leisure West Complex, Feltham

[Lorenz]

Hi, here is my husband's PCN as promised.

I answer the questions below

 

1 Date of the infringement 20/03/2023

 

2 Date on the NTK  21/04/2023

 

3 Date received 26/04/2023
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, bad ones
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Not yet
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A
 

7 Who is the parking company? Parkingeye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Leisure West Complex, Feltham
 

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

 

20230429_095742 (2 files merged).pdf

[lookinforinfo]

They really are **** at Parking Eye.

Yes the car did return within the no return period but overall they only spent 30 minutes in the car park when they were allowed 4 hours free parking.

 

I think the landowners are University Superannuation Scheme ltd. You could contact them writing explaining that the driver of the car went back before the specified time but only spent 30 minutes in total over both visits-well within the free four hour s allowed. If there was a good reason why the return was made-perhaps to pick up a disabled person for example state that. 

 

When writing do not reveal who was driving.

Say I am the registered keeper and the driver of my  car entered your complex etc.

Do not say that you entered the car park or that you were driving.

 

The reason being that the PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so the keeper is not liable for the debt. Tell USS that as PE should be involved with the management of the car park not nit picking when a genuine customer is trying to free up the car park for  others to charge £100 for only spending 30 minutes in the car park is very bad judgement and poor management.

 

Then ask if they could kindly arrange to have the ticket cancelled especially as the PCN does not comply with PoFA and so have failed to be able to transfer the charge from the driver to you.

 

[Lorenz]

1 hour ago, lookinforinfo said:

I think the landowners are University Superannuation Scheme ltd

Can you please point me towards the source of this info?

I want to pass as many information as possible to the school and other parents.

Thanks

[lookinforinfo]

cips ltd at Feltham leisure west complex

If you google  the above   search words  they show CIPS did the work there for the USS . From that I assumed they were the land owners at the time.

If I try and use the URL it won't open so I have used this roundabout way of doing it.

 

[lookinforinfo]

You might be able to confirm that by ringing CIPS or checking it out at the land  registry office for £14.95

[Lorenz]

Last time i used the land registry it was £3 

[dx100uk]

£7.50 now i think

watch out for sites charging more

only use the land registry site that ends .gov.uk

 

there are sites out there that say at the end govuk. and the .com .eu .cn .ru .org etc are hidden 

be very careful.

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Great that they've messed up with POFA here too.

 

LFI's idea is a good one, nothing ventured ...

 

Make sure you get loads of photos of their carp signage.

Edited May 3, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[Lorenz]

Thanks, will do.

[Lorenz]

Hi, my husband made a dashcam video of the car park.

If you notice, as you enter and park, there's one sign on the left with their t&c, too small to read from the car.

This is facing out, so you enter, park and go to any of the retails near the road (pizza hut, burger king, taxi controller and a grill restaurant) and you won't see any of their t&c signs.

 

This is the way in:

 

 

And this out:

 

This is the sign

20230503_083748.PDF

[FTMDave]

Well done hubby.

 

No sign at the entrance (in defiance of their own trade association CoP as well as the government one).

 

No signs showing the change of regulations (ditto + ditto).

 

They wouldn't have a hope in hell in court.

 

 

[Lorenz]

There is a sign at the entrance, it's on the left, but impossible to read from the car.

[FTMDave]

Yes, I noticed it, but it's so ridiculous that I didn't count it as "at the entrance"!  There's supposed to be a large, obvious sign facing the traffic.

[Lorenz]

Is there a guide on how signs should be?

Or pictures showing the standard expected?

[honeybee13]

I think it could be in the BPA rules.

 

HB

[Lorenz]

Ok, thanks.

But are those rules or guidelines?

[Nicky Boy]

Code of practice... they have to follow it to be able to obtain details from the DVLA, so it's obligatory.

[FTMDave]

It'll be somewhere in this pile of tripe

 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

 

On top of that, in any court case PE would be relying on their signs having formed a contract with the driver.  No legible sign = no contract!

[Lorenz]

Trying to learn here, please bear with me. 

So their argument would be that there's a sign at the car park entrance,  although not readable from inside a car.

I read in the BPA rules that they have to warn the drivers on entry that there are t&c for parking.

Then they need to put sufficient signs with t&c around the car park so one could decide whether to park or not.

Is their failure in the fact that there should be a sign on entry stating that there are t&c or something else?

Because the only readable sign is the blue one saying customers car park, 4 hours free.

 

On a different subject,  they've not mentioned pofa in their ticket, does this mean that they're not going to rely on that if it goes to court? (They're out of time 14 days).

If not, what would they rely on to extract money from the registered keeper?

 

One last question: am I right in thinking that because this is a civil matter I do not have any legal obligations to disclose the driver's identity?

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

correct

[Lorenz]

Sorry, I don't understand what's correct. 

[Gick]

DX can be quite cryptic in his replies!

 

You are correct in that you do not have to disclose whom is the driver.

 

Unless the PPC complies with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in all respects, the indebtedness of the driver cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper. The fleecers will still try to claim (often by assuming that they are one and the same - something that the Courts do not allow) so, providing that you do not identify yourself as the driver by use of 'I parked' or similar,  the claim can be batted off.

[Lorenz]

Ok, thanks.

Can they claim that it is dvla fault for the delay?

For example,  can they say that they immediately requested the keeper's details and dvla took 3 weeks to disclose them?

Would that be an excuse that the court might accept or it doesn't matter what, they must comply with pofa?

[Nicky Boy]

No, pofa is quite clear. Any delay is simply down to the fleecers. Tough!

[Lorenz]

Ok, I see some desperate words in the letter me and my husband received today.

As you suggested, we will ignore this begging for money...

20230525_131417.PDF