New Generation Parking PCN - Claimform - parking outside of marked bay - Appeal refused - Malpas road shopping centre, Newport, Wales.

[honeybee13]

Are you able to show us your appeals to New Generation and the IAS please?

HB

[FTMDave]

It's absolutely essential to see what they are accusing you of (the original PCN) and what if anything you have let slip to them (your appeal).

Please post up anything you have.

As for the rest ... get a SAR off today to New Generation, 2nd class stamp, free Certificate of Posting.

Yes, I know you are sending a CPR request to DCBL, but, belt & braces, we need to get our hands on this info.

Please learn for the future not to throw away paperwork when you're in legal dispute, it makes it ten times harder to defend yourself and you have to play catch-up later.

[dx100uk]

On 20/02/2024 at 21:04, TT98 said:

Date to submit defence - 15/03/24

your defence is already in the court sticky further down as nickyboy said.

dx

[TT98]

This is the full appeal & response : 

You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued.

You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge.
You completed the appeal on 09/02/2023 18:19:20.

Upon arriving at the shopping centre The driver attempted to park in the disabled bay, which at the time was encroached by another vehicle already parked well outside of their bay, not displaying a badge.

Due to the nature of the visit, the driver was required to park promptly and exit the vehicle, whilst displaying the blue disabled badge.

Upon appealing, apparently the only thing that matters in this case is the sign post stating the parking bays must be adhered to at all times.

Without any recognition for the fact the driver was physically not able to park elsewhere & correctly displayed their blue parking badge 

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/02/2023 15:02:06.

The Operator Reported That...

• The appellant was the driver.
• The appellant was the keeper.
• The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
• ANPR/CCTV was used.
• The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/12/2022.
• A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
• The ticket was issued on 09/12/2022.
• The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
• The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

The vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked parking bay whilst parked in one of the carpark that we manage.

Signage displayed throughout the site states "Vehicles to be parked within the confines of a marked parking bay".

As the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions that are stated on the contractual signage throughout the site, a Parking Charge was issued. 

As stated in the NGP initial appeal: 

Arrived on site with a disabled passenger & as is visible in photo, we were unable to park in the disabled bay due to the other vehicle in the photo encroaching the disabled bay, meaning my passenger could not physically get out of the vehicle if we had parked between the marked lines.

Please see photo for proof of blue badge & photo of parking on the day.

Blue badge was displayed whilst parked. 

>> We would just like to clarify that upon receiving their appeal, we reviewed the CCTV footage from the date in question and at no point did a passenger leave the vehicle nor is the keeper mentioning these facts to this IAS appeal. 

We note that during the appeal process that we were provided with a disabled badge, but not the full badge showing whose badge this belongs to. Nevertheless the driver failed to correctly park within confines of the bay. 

However for the IAS adjudicators viewing only we have attached a file titled "PCN ...." This file shows the events that occurred with the driver on this date. 

Please see file titled "Malpas Road Shopping Park" which shows what the signage looks like onsite. 

Please see the file titled "Vehicle Location" which shows where the vehicle was parked and where the signage was located near by. 

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

A number of images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. 

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice.

I can see from the photographs provided that the Appellant was not parked within the confines of a marked bay, which the Appellant accepts.

Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Simply by parking outside of a marked bay the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed. 

Currently appealed .....

Issued on 09/12/2022 by New Generation Parking Management Ltd to vehicle registration

Originally rejected by operator on 02/02/2023

[TT98]

Will get the SAR sent off to new gen parking 

[FTMDave]

This is a favourite scam of the private parking companies.  Do nothing at all about a vehicle parked badly in the full knowledge that other vehicles will have to park badly as a result, so they have excuses to issue their PCNs.

It's predatory behaviour and forbidden by their own Codes of Practice.

This puts you in a great position legally.  No, you shouldn't be trying to strike a deal with them.  Legally you owe them nothing!

Appealing was a waste of time, but you didn't out the driver - well done.

I understand you have photos of the incident.  Yes, please upload them.

The SAR should produce the rest.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry to contradict you Dave but the OP did out themself as the driver. The  passenger could not get out of the car  which left the driver as the other occupant ie the OP.

 

[FTMDave]

Just reread the appeal.  You're right LFI.

This shows yet again why appealing to the PPC's kangaroo court is a dreadful idea.

Anyway, let's see the photos.

 

[TT98]

Have definitely learnt my lesson and will refrain from appealing anything like this in future, will send all photos I have available, thanks everyone 

 

car _merged.pdf

Edited February 27 by Nicky Boy
Files merged

[honeybee13]

Hi.

Would it be possible please to put your pdf files into a multipdf? It takes ages for people on mobile phones to download them.

Our upload guide [click on the words] will help you.

HB

 

[Nicky Boy]

Done...

[FTMDave]

Thanks for the photos.  A few things.

1.  For the regulars.  Do we think an attendant took these photos or was it CCTV?  They are taken from up a height.

2.  For the OP, it was the car with reg. ... 3 HRG that stopped you parking in the next bay, right?

3.  For the OP, was there any reason you didn't park between the lines in the furthest right bay before the lamp post?  I ask as you can be sure the other side will pick up on this to try to beat you.

[TT98]

Even though I’m not a regular I can confidently say these were taken with CCTV as there is no elevated platform the attendant could have reached to take these photos, I don’t believe parking attendants are ever present at this site due to its size & the time of night makes me think it is even less likely. 

The HRG reg was indeed the vehicle obstructing my access to the bay as it was present before I arrived 

The open bay next to where I have parked may be my downfall here, I perhaps should have used that space but had in mind that another car may use the disabled bay I had intended to use, therefore limiting access to the passenger side of my vehicle, being forced to park outside of the bay themselves.

I will also admit I didn’t even realise at the time how desperate these parking companies had gotten and had no idea parking fines were issued for parking outside of marked bays 

[jk2054]

cctv the timestamps in the top right

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

The way the court system works, with fixed costs included in the claim, means you have nothing to lose by fighting on.

Give in now and you pay them their claim.

Lose in court and you pay them their claim.  So why not fight?

In fact were you to lose in court it's highly likely that the judge would increase the amount by their £25 hearing fee but then decrease it by disallowing the £70 Unicorn Food Tax they have just made up and added to the claim.

It was however a mistake not to park in the far bay.

But what about their negligence in allowing a disgracefully-parked vehicle to stay where it was and prevent your BB access?

In any case, there is a long, long way to go before court.  A lot of these companies start a court claim in the hope that the motorist will wet themself and give in.  If a case is robustly defended and a decent Witness Statement produced, a good 20% of the time they drop the cases.  We'll support you all the way.

[FTMDave]

Thanks to you both.  I'd guessed it was CCTV, but the creeps who sneak up and take photos of the vehicles also use time stamps.

BTW TT98, what you have received is not a fine, you can never be clobbered for the statutory consequences of not paying a fine - because it isn't one. 

It's an invoice, and they have the same right to sue you as you have the right to sue anyone as a layperson who doesn't pay you for an invoice.  It's just a simple civil matter about a "debt".  Nothing worse.

[dx100uk]

well hidden i cant see one.

 

NP20 6WB.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

10 hours ago, FTMDave said:

3.  For the OP, was there any reason you didn't park between the lines in the furthest right bay before the lamp post?  I ask as you can be sure the other side will pick up on this to try to beat you.

 

9 hours ago, FTMDave said:

It was however a mistake not to park in the far bay.

Dave, don't think you've noticed, but the furthest right bay is not actually a disabled bay! (No yellow hashes on the far side).

OP was obviously entitled to a disabled bay, but couldn't possibly have parked to give himself enough space to open both doors without encroaching into the "standard" bay, so it makes no odds how far he crossed the line.

ps It would be interesting to see the rest of the row of disabled spaces.

[FTMDave]

Are we sure about this Nick?

In dx's photo there is a car parked in that far bay (the one next to the lamp post).

Do the yellow hashes have to be on both sides for a disabled bay?  Is not one side enough?

I confess I know absolutely nowt about disabled parking and Googling has got me even more confused!!

[dx100uk]

the two end spaces do not have yellow boxes bothsides, the other on the far right end is against a kerb, only box is on passenger side

[Nicky Boy]

Yes dx, you're right.

New pic attached. You can also now see the camera. (Taken from the road rather than the older Google pic in the car park).

What a ridiculous situation!

As Dave said, it's not really clear whether yellow hashes are required on both sides of a space, but common sense dictates that they should be on both sides.

If not, it means that you must park forwards or backwards, depending on markings... But, if you need to access the boot for a wheelchair, you have to pull in forwards to use the hatched area at the rear.

Also, what if driver and passenger are disabled?

Bay Pic.pdf

[TT98]

Hi all, just an update,

I am planning on going ahead with my defence & fighting as you’ve said, have nothing else to lose now!

Have received these letters from DCB legal in response to what I’ve sent them, included in the pack were the all of the photos I’ve previously uploaded to this thread, my vehicle, signs & site map.

Along with my appeal. 
 

 

 

latest letters.pdf

[dx100uk]

next time please redact PROPERLY and put everything in ONE PDF.

read upload

[dx100uk]

post hidden 

you MUST remove all ref numbers and PCN NUMBERS!! and ID numbers

you keep leaving them on every page you upload.

do you want them to find you here?

dx

 

[TT98]

Hopefully this is better. 
 

New Generation response to SAR 

 

for context I was purchasing an item through Facebook marketplace, reason for meeting another vehicle  

New_gen_response_to_SAR.pdf