Jump to content


Parkingeye ANPR PCN - no return in 2hrs - received after 16 days - Leisure West Complex, Feltham


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 115 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, 

Just received another one of these and to be honest I don't remember going there twice in 2 hours, but here it is.

As title says, I received it after 16 days.

This time Protection of Freedom Act 2012 is mentioned. 

Details:

1 Date of the infringement 21/11/2023

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 31/11/2023 (this is the date issued, but infringement is 21/11/2023) see scanned file

 

3 Date received 06/12/2023
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Yes
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, very grainy 
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No. Is the advice still to ignore unless they send a letter of claim?
 

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.

Popla 

 

This is it really.

Last time I ignored their 3 begging letters and they stopped contacting me. 

Do I do the same or is it different because they mentioned PoFA?

Thank you!

 

2013-11-30 PCN for incident 2023-11-21.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, this has to be one of the most stupid invoices issued for the most petty of reasons that we've seen here.

What was the reason for your two visits?

I ask as there may be the chance of getting the leisure complex to intervene.

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

dx should be along shortly but I believe the advise is not to appeal from what I can remember. 

 

However in the meantime if you were a customer in whereever you were parked, and had a genuine reason for being there then you should contact them as FTM advised.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lorenz said:

Is the advice still to ignore unless they send a letter of claim?

:rockon:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember why there are 2 visits.

Could've been one by me, one by husband or any other combination. 

Forget about a valid reason.

Last time we couldn't find the landowner. 

It would appear that the land belongs to a university and there are a few retails on there.

Burger king, pizza hut, bingo, ten pin and cinema.

We all use that car park to pick up/drop off kids from the 3 schools around there.

Although schools tell you to park there, they have no agreement with the landowner; explored this avenue last time.

So, what's the difference now that they've mentioned PoFA?

Also, if my calculation is correct, the letter is one day late past the 14 days, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

The PCN does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012  as the PCN  does not ask the keeper to pay the charge. That means that you as keeper are not liable to pay the PCN. Only the driver is liable. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Section 8 (2) (b)

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, it's just clicked with me that this is the second ticket you've got for this site.

All the great work you've put in with photos of the signage, etc., will obviously come in handy here too.

 

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

@Nicky Boy Hi, I don't understand why it doesn't comply.

 

Section 8(2)(b) says:

inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

That's what it says on page 2 of the invoice under "Protection of Freedom Act"

Am I having a blonde moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake,

It's 9(2)(b) as per LFI's post, but it says the same thing.

I believe he is referring to "and that the parking charges have not been paid in full", which they haven't stated.

LFI is always very specific, almost pedantic, but strictly speaking, he is correct.

PPC's are supposed to follow the legislation to the letter.

Legislation is very detailed and specific. It's supposed to leave no room for misunderstanding or debate... which is what solicitors and barristers are always doing... arguing over the details.

I'm pretty sure that LFI could come up with many such points if he put his mind to it. (He has in the past).

 

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear: it's free to park for 4 hours, no way to pay after this period.

You either leave or use an ipad in one of the shops to extend the staying. 

They have a no return within 2 hours policy.

Never mind if one parks a car for 10 minutes and then another 10 minutes within 2 hours, they want money.

But if one leaves the car for 4 hours they're ok.

Where's their loss?

Car park is always almost empty.

@Nicky Boy The invoice says that the driver is required to pay the parking charge in full.

I read that the "de minimis" principle apply in cases where a minor breach doesn't affect the end result.

From what they say it's clear that the driver hasn't paid the charge in full.

Please enlighten me. 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lorenz,

You are getting paranoid about details. there are so many! The team will come up with arguments if it's ever needed.

Quick one is that their trade assosiation rules (which they MUST follow) allows for a 5 minute "consideration" period, to decide whether you want to park there... also a 10 minute "grace" period to actually leave the car park... So, 15 minutes.

Your first "stay" was only 13 minutes, so does that count as your first parking period? I would say not.

But this is all time wasted on explaining / pointing out stuff when it may never be needed.

Just let it run it's course and see if the idiots try court.

Relax and enjoy Christmas...

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I missed your earlier posts about the PCN not being compliant.

It relates to 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

they missed out asking the KEEPER to pay the PCN. They did get  the next part right but the damage was done by not advising the keeper to pay .

At the start of Section 9 [2] it says "The Notice [ie the PCN] MUST......." then gives a list of what conditions the PCN must carry out to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. From a legal standpoint if the word "must" is used then whatever is asked has to has to be done. Using the word in capitals makes it even more vital that the wording is correct.

It follows that if a section is missed off all together  the PCN can not be described as complying with the Act and so Parking Eye cannot transfer the onus to pay the PCN on to the keeper.

I suspect that what was intended by the non return to the car park for a certain time was to prevent shoppers from staying for three hours then leaving and coming back later for another three hours.

It does seem unfair the people who drop off someone to go shopping then return later to pick them up thus not spending so much time in the car park are penalised when they are actually helping to reduce the time spent in the car park.

I would have thought that if you appealed to the Land owner of the complex by stating that your actions kept their car park clearer without mentioning which one of you went shopping and which one was driving would probably get the PCN quashed.. For example, the driver drove a member of the family to go shopping and  ninety minutes later returned to collect the shopper  would show up the unreasonableness [if there is such a word] of being issued a PCN.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

unreasonableness [if there is such a word]

Yes LFI... It is a word!

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/unreasonableness

You should use it a lot more...😉

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...