University of Leeds (Hospital) ANPR PCN -

[Chimichanga]

Update. PALS have forwarded my email on to the appeals team … rolls eyes* 

[lookinforinfo]

I agree that it is worth an appeal as the PCN is non compliant into the bargain.

Under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] -

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;

There is no mention of the keeper paying to Charge. Therefore the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Under Schedule 4 S9[2] [a] 

(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 mention of the period of parking on the PCN . The timing on the photos is not the same as including it on the PCN.

Also the timing mentioned on the PCN is the time spent between the arrival and departure  of the car which involves driving to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit. This therefore cannot be called a parking period.   

Another fail which reinforces that the keeper is not responsible.and there is no obligation to name the driver.

 

[brassnecked]

If they are stupid enough to ignore the letter and keep pushing LFI's post gives an absolute defence that would get them laughed out of court.

[Chimichanga]

Today I have a reply. Brace yourselves. 
 

The University of Leeds uses an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) system to monitor and enforce parking conditions on campus.

At both entrances to the University of Leeds Orange Zone car parks (at Woodhouse Lane and Willow Terrace) there are multiple signs stating the terms and conditions of parking here. The driver has driven past those signs, entered the car parks and thereby have accepted the conditions of parking on University land. There is further signage throughout the car parks again displaying the conditions of parking.

The University’s Orange Zone car parks are for permit holders and pre-booked visitors only between 7am & 5pm Monday to Friday. Outside of these hours the car parks are open to the public, but a parking tariff is payable (including Blue badge holders).

We are not associated with the NHS so the information you provided regarding the “NHS Car Parking Guidance 2022” does not apply to the University of Leeds and is therefore irrelevant.  

I can see the amount for this PCN has been increased to £80, on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill I have reduced the payment to £20. Payment can be made online at https://leedsunipay.iview.co.uk. Please note, if payment is not made in the next 14 days, then the balance of this PCN will increase to £80.

If you wish to appeal then you can do so to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Details of the appeals procedure can be found at www.theIAS.org. The IAS provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. We will engage with the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you comply with our internal appeals procedure as detailed herein and that thereafter you lodge an appeal to the IAS within 21 days of rejection.

If you do appeal and do not hear from us within 28 days then please contact us, do not assume that your appeal has been successful. Please be advised that if you choose to appeal to the IAS and your appeal is unsuccessful, you will lose the right to pay at the reduced amount.

Due to legal procedures, it is difficult for the University of Leeds to submit verbal evidence before the court. We therefore regret that we are unable to deal with telephone enquiries with regard to the issue of this PCN. All enquiries must be forwarded in writing. This charge has been lawfully issued and the collection process will be carried out in accordance with The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

1% of me wants to just pay the £20 to be rid of it the other 99% would rather donate that to this forum. Grrr

[honeybee13]

Could you confirm who the letter is from please?

HB

[Chimichanga]

Hey HB 

this is from the parking appeals team. From the email address on the back of the PCN. 

[Bazooka Boo]

Well IMHO they've made the decision for you.

As they are nothing to do with the NHS, why on earth would anyone fund their Christmas party, I'd tell them exactly where they can stick their £20, then go back and park under one of their cameras and light a £20 note....

 

Alternatively, should you not be as angry as I, donate the £20 to PALS.

These clowns lose!

[Nicky Boy]

Dave was right to be pessimistic then. Hats off sir.

ALL PPC's are money grabbing... can't say the word!

Universities will be strapped for cash soon with possible upcoming changes in rules for foreign students, so they're probably grabbing whatever they can.

 

So, in your first post you said the car was parked in Leeds University / Hospital grounds.

So is there part of the car park designated as Hospital grounds?

 

In any case, if you're up for it, you can get into a fight with them.

Personally, I think you're onto a winner, because of the circumstances.

The registered keeper has a fully documented medical condition and could not have been driving the vehicle.

They don't know who the driver was and have absolutely no way of finding out.

There was a disabled badge following all normal rules for parking (on yellow lines).

Plus everything LFI comes up with for their paperwork.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[Bazooka Boo]

The PCN isn't compliant anyway, as LFI pointed out.

[Chimichanga]

I am definitely up for a fight. You guys all helped me last time and it resulted in a win…  Gladstone’s had to cough up £50. Sweet justice. Id go as far as small claims just to see the look on the J’s face when they see an elderly Alzheimer’s patient defending themselves!

The car was parked outside of the car park on the roadside on double yellow lines. It’s unclear as to whether it’s university or Hospital grounds as they are all literally on the same land. Also it is a University Hospital.

Is it worth me responding to the email above stating (again) that the car was not parked in the car park? The PCN says ‘By parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions. The reason we issued the PCN is: FAILURE TO PAY FOR THE DURATION OF THE STAY. 
 

Also the reply to the appeal says “The driver has driven past those signs, entered the car parks and thereby have accepted the conditions of parking on University land.” I didn’t know that driving past a sign it means one accepts the T&C’s? What if it’s not legible from the car?

I could also include LookingForInfo’s points above?

Im going to drive up and take a look at the area so I can get pictures to show you. 
 

Thanks all. 

[Nicky Boy]

The bottom line is that if they take it to court, the only person they could possibly claim against is someone with a proven medical condition who was unable to even drive.

Sounds like a slam-dunk to me.

[dx100uk]

i bet its still on grounds owned by the NHS...mind

now most uni's like most FE colleges were forced to become Incorporated by Thatcher in 1992. (private)

they might be a sep entity to the NHS, but i can assure you they do not own the grounds their building are on nor the land they manage. 

go check, if it's NHS land the car park/uni is on - if it then their (NHS) rules still apply.

how do i know this...well lets just i was in that circle at the time, most wanted to fence off campuses for security, they couldn't as it was LEA land and public had right of way through it. 

dx

 

[Homer67]

Time to contact the local paper.

[Nicky Boy]

Yes, exactly the sort of story the media likes... Harassment and intimidation of disabled vicims.

[Chimichanga]

Thanks Dx, have emailed the hospital asking the question re land ownership (the lady there has been helpful thus far). 
 

I take that back, she was no help. 

So... I'm going to reply to the appeals teams' email:

Could you please clarify who owns the land on which the university sits and also the area of 'Willow Terrace" outside of the car park.

Please also provide pictures of where the vehicle was 'parked' and details of the duration of parking as this is not detailed on the PCN. (Gives them a hint about where i'm heading with that?)

Or do I just scrap that idea and go straight IAS?

[honeybee13]

IAS is usually a kangaroo court. Unless someone thinks it's a good idea to appeal to teem. 

HB

[Nicky Boy]

Also, it's maybe not such a good idea to let them know that you know.

Just in case they're dumb enough to try court.

I dunno... A university acting dumb!

[FTMDave]

Difficult one this.  Pay £20 and the matter is dealt with.

But like you, it'd stick in my throat.  They know the car park was not abused so could quite easily have cancelled it completely.

As you say, it'd be fun to see whatever second-rate solicitor they got for a court case trying to question someone with advanced Alzheimer's (as long as the process wouldn't disturb the person too much). 

Definitely don't appeal to the IAS, they are the worst kangaroo court imaginable.

If you decide to tell them where to stick their invoice we'll support you all the way.

[Chimichanga]

I know. I just can’t bloomin decide. I have enough on my plate right now and could really do without this. But I REALLY don’t want to give in

[Nicky Boy]

Why not make a counter offer... Say £1.50?

Could get a dialogue going

 

If they come back with £10, drop your offer to £1...

[lookinforinfo]

You could go back and explain that the as PCN is not compliant with PoFA 2012 the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable for the debt.

The PCN does not ask that the keeper should pay   the charge as it should under  Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - . As it doesn't the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Therefore it would be advisable to cancel the PCN since there is no chance of you winning in Court. As you now know the keeper is not liable to issue a court summons would be in breach of his GDPR.

[Chimichanga]

You crack me up!

 

Thanks LFI. Should I send that to the appeals team at the University or is that shooting myself in the foot by letting them know I’m ‘in the know’?

 

A quick phone call to the council... they tell me that the roads Willow Terrace Road and Vernon Road (Just before the bend leading to another car park), are both adopted by the council and so one would assume double yellow line parking rules do actually apply there. So unless they can show that the driver was parked in the car park surely they can't pursue this?

Dear Parking Appeals,

I appreciate yur kind offer of reducing the charge, however, there is no valid reason for the charge to the registered keeper in the first place. Firstly because (as I understand it) the car was parked on Vernon Road outside the Chapel. The road is council owned (as confirmed by the council a short time ago). Since the road is council owned and adopted by the council then normal double Yellow Parking Rules apply here.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that:

Under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] -

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;

The PCN does not ask that the keeper should pay the charge as it should under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - . As it doesn't the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Under Schedule 4 S9[2] [a] 

(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 mention of the period of parking on the PCN. 

The timing mentioned on the PCN by way of the images, is the time spent between the arrival and departure  of the car which involves driving to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit. This therefore cannot be called a parking period.  This reinforces that the keeper is not responsible.

In order to rely on Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the PCN must meet all the criteria in order to recover from the Registered Keeper. Since you have not met this criteria the Keeper is not liable and is under no obligation to name the driver (which they unfortunately cannot due to their advanced Alzheimer's and Vascular Dementia).

I would again politely request you to cancel the PCN since there is no chance of you winning in Court. Since you now know the keeper is not liable, to issue a court summons would be in breach of their GDPR.

How's that?

[lookinforinfo]

That should work but never underestimate the power of greed of  parking companies .

[Nicky Boy]

Again,

I'd be tempted to be a little more simple, but vague.

If you're absolutely positive that the vehicle was parked on council owned property...

Just point out that they have no power to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked on a public road. (No more than that, don't name the road, just leave them guessing).

Also, as you have already pointed out, the Registered Keeper has a medical condition which prevents them from driving, so was defintely not driving the vehicle at the time. Unfortunately, due to his condition, he is also unable to name one of several possible drivers.

If they now insist taking recovery or legal action, in full knowledge of the above, they would be in breach of the data protection act.

You would certainly consider a claim in this regard and compensation for such claims have been known to run into thousands of pounds.

 

Wait for comment from other regulars.

[Chimichanga]

Thanks NickyBoy and Lookingforinfo

have double checked online and yes the land is definitely public. 
 

ok will redraft. Do you suggest I leave out the sch4 bits too?

thank you!