Excel vanishing Windscreen PCN NTK - parked in a restricted area - GALLAGHER retail park, Huddersfield, HD5 0AN

[Maffster]

Hi …

Received (NTK) PCN on Wednesday. Uploaded PDF, hopefully within the site’s parameters.

Not aware that this is defensible given van was parked where it would safely/responsibility fit rather than in a parking bay as they don’t accommodate (length).

Only just received so haven’t responded as yet due to how long it took to arrive; it puts me outside the early payment as today is the last day to make that payment and I don’t have £60.00 laying around due to my current financial status (medical retirement).

Have read the legislation re Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (schedule 4), my understanding is there are 14 days etc - Excel date stamped the NTK 14 days ago, why has it taken 14 days from posting to receiving, it’s sent from within the same county. Easter notwithstanding it should have arrived a week ago.

Have not contacted Excel; spoke to National Debtline, motor vehicle legislation, then here.

Required info below:

1. Date of the infringement: 23/03/2024

2. Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]: 27/03/2024

3. Date received : 10/04/2024

4. Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? N 

5. Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y 

6. Have you appealed? N

Have you had a response? N/A 

7. Who is the parking company? Excel Parking

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town:] Gallagher Retail Park, Huddersfield 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under: International Parking Community (IPC)
 

Thank you .

 

 

2024-03-27 PCN NTK Incident 2024-03-23.pdf

[lolerz]

Hi Maffster.

Welcome to CAG.

Thank you for filling out the template and uploading your PCN. I wish every new member was as clued up! I have had to edit the PDF as the PCN Reference number was still showing but I'll forgive you this once

It's good you haven't appealed. The even better news is that their PCN doesn't mention the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 at all. 

This means that only the driver is liable to pay the charge. Anyone with valid insurance and a licence can drive that vehicle and the courts don't accept that the driver and keeper are the same person. Simply don't state who the driver is at any point so you don't lose this protection.

It's also not an ANPR picture, someone has taken pictures of the vehicle. Are you aware if the driver noted a Windscreen PCN upon their return?

[lolerz]

Topic Title Updated

[Maffster]

The PDF ... almost

No notice on the vehicle, just the NTK yesterday.

Do I respond, or should I just go back to my crayons

Thank you lolerz, much appreciated

[lolerz]

Ignore Excel and their dogs totally for now. DEFINTELY do not respond! Especially do not use their appeals process as you'll likely lose all protections given by POFA.

They will *never* accept an appeal. They have no reason to lose income like that, their "independent" appeals process is also just their mates and guess what, they won't accept your appeal either!

Unfortunately, Excel and their sister company VCS are very well known to us.  They have a company policy of issuing court claims against huge numbers of motorists who don't pay them, maybe the majority.  Therefore, however you respond, you're likely to have to see them off in court. (Ty @FTMDave for the excellent explanation on this!)

Winning at court is not a problem.

Our usual process now is that we ignore the PPC completely until they issue you a letter of claim/letter before action. Where we then do a "Snotty Letter". Essentially taunting the PPC and letting them you know you'll be trouble in court.

 

[Nicky Boy]

Maffster,

As lolerz has alluded to already... DON'T APPEAL!

Also can you go onto the "myparkingcharge" website and download/screenshot all the images they have.

Something they haven't mentioned is a period of parking (which is required) and it'll be interesting to see the timestamps on the pics.

Depending on the conditions at the car park you're entitled to at least 5 minutes "consideration" (reading their stupid signs) before you actually park.

 

[Maffster]

Right, I’ll sit tight, and wait for a potential court wrangle.

Again, appreciate your advice lolerz

Nicky Boy - cheers for that too. It was longer than five minutes, reckon maybe 4 bags of weekly shopping kinda time.

[Nicky Boy]

7 minutes ago, Maffster said:

Nicky Boy - cheers for that too. It was longer than five minutes, reckon maybe 4 bags of weekly shopping kinda time

Yes, but the important thing is what does their photographic evidence say? The pic taker may well not have hung around for longer than a few minutes...

[Maffster]

My apologies Nicky Boy, wasn’t aware of the importance of the time period.

Downloaded the photos, 5 of, one of which (#4) has a notice under the passenger side wiper - the driver wasn’t aware of the notice, supposing it was still under the wiper, when they returned to the van, though their eyesight is excellent. 

Time stamps:

1. 11:12:38 (van)

2. 11:12:48 (van)

3. 11:12:52 (van)

4. 11:13:04 (notice under wiper)

5. 11:13:16 (car par terms/conditions board)

Total elapsed time:  38 seconds.

[FTMDave]

I agree with the others.

I've been on this site eight years and have seen plenty of people naively appeal to Excel/VCS - not in one case did Simple Simon accept the appeal.  Unfortunately most of those who did appeal also outed themselves as the driver and made winning more difficult.

Interesting that their invoice is for parking in a restricted area, rather than parking outside of a bay.

Also interesting that we had absolutely nothing on this car park - and now there are two cases within a few days of each other.  Do you know if these parking restrictions are recent?  if so there is stuff in the industry Codes of Practice about the change having to be made apparent with special signs, none of which Excel will have put up.

[FTMDave]

3 minutes ago, Maffster said:

one of which (#4) has a notice under the passenger side wiper

So invoice not sent in the 29-56 day POFA window.

Vehicle there within the consideration period.

Please upload the photos.

[Maffster]

6th photo Maps screenshot of car park, where van was.

Cheers Dave

pixs.pdf

I missed your questions.

Not aware of any changes to restrictions though they do consider a restricted area to be everything but a parking bay (see photo #6). 

Two issues, same company, two days … Excel are a blight for the local community. 

There are a few local community groups reporting on the various tactics employed by Excel down on the Gallagher retail park,

I believe the local paper has run a few articles (Huddersfield Examiner Live), and a local councillor has become involved in the issue given there are so many complaints.

[Nicky Boy]

So their ticket wasn't on the windscreen when you got back? Naughty Excel. However, by giving evidence that they left one, they've shot themselves in the foot as Dave says due to timings of postal notices.

By the way guys, I'm nowhere near a PC to redact easily and the last upload has reg number showing. 

[dx100uk]

so a real vanishing excel windscreen PCN.

bet the little bugger took it off after issuing it.

silly really.

pix redacted and file properly named!!

[Maffster]

Sorry about the reg number on the photos, I was busy trying to dredge up everything I’ve forgotten about digital communication/admin/data gathering … plus I was impressed with myself until I realised I’d caused you guys more work

I wasn’t the driver, so I genuinely can only accept the word of the one who was; they have a default setting for excruciating honesty, as for their eyesight, they started off in life as a sniper (military), and they can still see a gnat wink from half a mile off

My takeaway from everything you’ve all said:

1. do not appeal
2. allow for possible for LBA/LOC at some point
3. if above bears out send the snotty letter

Additionally there are issues with their recording/communication of the contravention, therefore they’re remiss in their service delivery - have I got that right?

 

 

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

You're a quick learner Maff.

If you're so inclined, you should read around the forum to educate yourself on what to expect next and the type of "companies" PPC's are.

Unfortunately, naive victims often treat them as reasonable, bona fide businesses, when they in fact need aggressive responses (at the appropriate time).

[Maffster]

Cheers for that Nicky

In truth I ended my working life as a civil servant; most of my career required me to constantly risk assess, negotiate, record/report, push against the machine for people, whilst always keeping in mind vast swathes of legislative matters that must be observed.

Or something

If it’s of any worth, I understand the benefit system incredibly well, with a specific understanding of what folks do wrong when it comes to acquiring the support they need and finding they don’t get it. 

I was, and remain, an uncivil servant

[dx100uk]

oh well then...

Benefits and HMRC - Consumer Action Group

off you go...

[lookinforinfo]

The fact that your PCN arrived late is irrelevant.

The criteria is that PCNs are deemed as having arrived two business days after posting.

Nevertheless as Nicky said the PCN still does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.

Do we believe that the PCN was posted on the 27th or was it actually posted so that it would arrive on the day that was too late to be able to pay the reduced sum?

If you work on the presumption that most of the private parking companies are a combination of unscrupulous scrotes and village idiots you can make your own decision from there.. If you have kept the envelope it might give you some proof.

The PCN should specify the period of parking which it doesn't.

There are times on the photos but they are not part of the Notice.

In any event you weren't there long enough to as you left within the Consideration period of a minimum of five minutes.

On top of that there was a court case Jopson v  Homeguard defined what parking was, and unloading and delivering was not classed as parked.

Moreover as you were not the driver and the PCN is not compliant you as the keeper are no liable to pay the charge.

And they do not know the name or the address of the driver so they are pretty well stuffed.

Another fault with the PCN is in section 9 [2][f] where their PCN states  one thing and the Act says another -"

(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;"

They miss out the words in parentheses which has been enough on its own to have a previous case dismissed.

I am also uneasy about the mention of further costs involving debt collection which are not mentioned anywhere in the Act.

Probably because in the Act the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage.

That alone should make the PCN non compliant on its own.

[FTMDave]

I agree with everyone about the ten million reasons why this wouldn't stand up in court.

Just one thing though.  I think I made a mistake in post 11.

Does this daft Privacy Notice supposedly left on the vehicle count as a NTD?  I don't think it does.  It's not a demand for payment.  I think it's just some rubbish saying that the attendant has taken photos of the vehicle.

[Maffster]

Dave re the notice on the windscreen, no idea what it contained, I’ve never had one, it wasn’t noticed by the driver though I wish it had been, and had it been seen I would have had it straight away then found myself on here doing the same only three weeks earlier.

I think my neighbour had one, I’ll ask if she did, when was she notified etc.

Cheers

[FTMDave]

The point is that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act sets out two different timeframes in which the invoice has to get to you.

1.  If a Notice to Driver was left on the windscreen.  The timeframe is 29-56 days after the incident.

2.  If a NTD was not left.  Then within 14 days.

I think I jumped the gun and presumed (1), but in fact it was (2) in your case, as the bit of paper was not a NTD but instead just some rubbish telling you they were going to use images of the vehicle for "parking control" (AKA to rip you off).

None of this changes that their case is rubbish.

If you can upload an image of what your neighbour got that would clarify matters.

[Maffster]

Attached neighbours NTK. So far as I’m aware they only had the NTK.

The contravention was returning exceeding the free parking, only she didn’t. In her words:

Quote

Yeh I had one. Absolutely  useless and a pain cause I confused it by going in and out the same entrance and went back 5 hours later so it said I’d been there for 6 hours. 

I called on my lunch break (at 12:27), was back home for 1pm then went down again at 6:20 to get [redacted] a McDonalds.

I tried to contest it and sent them proof of emails from work at the times they said I was there but they still declined it.

Yeh course you can use the letter.  I ended up paying it cause they wouldn’t back down.

I asked her permission to use her NTK. That’s the top and bottom of how she acquired hers. 

That’s the common contravention in and among the local community - being accused of staying over 90 minutes, or returning within 90 minutes, or staying overnight.

Excel have been using the above tactic a number of years now and, I believe, the majority have paid attempted the appeal route, then paid up.   

Links to local news stories, initially they were Parking Eye.

Parking Eye Jan 2020

Parking Eye Sept 2014

Unsure if anyone’s noticed it’s now Excel but the tactics remain the same.

ND Excel Photos.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either.

Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period.

I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept.

But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving. 

So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.

[FTMDave]

It was really this daft Privacy Notice we were after, but no worries, I'm 99% sure it doesn't count as a NTD otherwise in his letter Simple Simon wouldn't have offered the discount of paying £60 instead of £100.

Apologies for jumping the gun earlier.

It's a pity your friend paid.  It's neither here nor there if Excel would back down or not.  They are not some statutory authority.  They're just a cowboy private company.  The only way she could have been forced to pay is if a judge had ruled against her in a court hearing, which is highly unlikely given she could have proved to have been elsewhere.

I see her "offence" was in May 2023 so logically Excel and their signs were there by then.