Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

PCM vanishing windscreen PCN - Royale Leisure Park - W3 (London)


Recommended Posts

As they have failed to deliver their original PCN you will need to send them an SAR where they should provide that PCN. It should show the address they used . If it is not your current one that would explain the non delivery. If it was correct then perhaps the Post office messed up. A more cynical view would be that UKPC didn't send it so that you couldn't claim the reduction.

It appears that UKPC have been there for some time  but I have been unable to find any pictures of their Notices.The leisure park itself is pretty big so while some parts maybe give 5 hours free parking other parts may have restrictions like permits. I haven't been there for years -I went  to Nandos and the bowling centre . I am surprised that they are now infested with UKPC as the place is plenty big enough not to require their dubious services.

If you live not to far away it would help if you could get some legible pictures of their signs. Be carful to park in an area that doesn't require a permit and take photos of the entrance signs, the five hour sign and the permit only sign as well as any other signs that are different from the previous signs. Also if their is a payment machine could you please photograph that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PCM vanishing windscreen PCN - Royale Leisure Park - W3 (London)

Thank you for posting the full sar.  So they definitely did place the PCN on your vehicle only to remove it 10 minutes later apparently because of a possible problem with the driver which seems highly unlikely [the reason for the PCN removal ]. Did the driver even see the warden at all while they were photographing the car . They did take several pictures spread over 12 minutes or so using a flash so the driver would have seen the car being photographed had they been there.   Very strange.

You said that you had an onboard camera -are you able to go back and see what happened? Was the warden wearing UKPC clothing?

In any event that PCN has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  That should be a Notice to Driver and the follow up PCN should not be sent until 28 days AFTER the day the first PCN  was given were it a postal PCN.

Instead the knuckleheads have issued the follow up PCN on the 28th day of their dodgy first PCN and so totally blowing all their machinations to get over the fact that  the windscreen ticket wasn't a windscreen ticket.

In neither case, even if they had been sent properly, they were non compliant. neither of them showed the period of parking which is specified in the Act. Both just show a time of issue at 20.02 but no end period.

Their  "mistake" in not giving 29 days  before issuing their keeper Liability notice, makes the PCN more than just non compliant. It means that the PCN was unlawful and probably deliberate as had UKPC waited until the correct time to send that Notice, it would have delayed it until the Monday. And as they probably knew that had not received the original windscreen PCN perhaps they thought it better to rewrite the Law.

Part of that is conjecture but the basic fact is correct-the Notice was unlawful. And for that there should be repercussions. My first thought was the ICO but  as it isn't really a breach of data protection it goes higher than that. Perhaps the Site Team would know. I did look at the Legal Ombudsman but they are for complaints against lawyers. 

I cannot imagine a decent lawyer even countenancing such a thing though were are dealing with third rate ones when involved with some parking companies.

 

For reference PoFA Schedule 4 S8 and S9 [2][f] f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

Their PCN dated 12/04/24 states "as 28 days have now elapsed since the Notice to Keeper was given, Parking Control management [UK] Ltd. [the creditor] are now able ...........to recover the unpaid parking charge from......... the registered keeper.

The original PCN was marked by them as being deemed delivered 15/03/2024 so 28 days +1 =13/04/24. Their letter was sent one day early which means they altered or ignored the law . I have never seen that "error" on any other Notice from any of the parking companies. As the Member did not receive the original PCN which was originally a Windscreen ticket but they then changed it to a postal one for some fanciful reason the whole scenario reeks of skullduggery.

I am going to ask again from Hamz why their warden might have felt scared about a confrontation with the driver but even if there was a chance the PCN was placed on the windscreen and not removed for around a minute but pictures had already been taken so why remove it? And then why produce a brand new keeper Liability Notice the like of which I have not seen before.

I would add that a complaint should also  be made to the DVLA and their ability to receive motorists data should  be removed -for the third [and final?] time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA .

IPC 

Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR

Dear IPC,

I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA .

My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint.

UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge. 

This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA.

You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists.

I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably deletes after a certain time. What a shame you did not check at the time. However I have no doubt that there was a PCN envelope under your windscreen wiper  as shown quite clearly on one of the photographs.

. It would seem strange that it was placed there empty hence the reason I stated a second Notice was issued [though not necessarily sent.

As I said in that letter to IPC that was not what the complaint was about and probably  IPC will ask about that at the same time if they accept you  going direct to IPC for the other matter. It is immaterial how many original PCNs were issued or not issued. You are able to show the two that you have from their sar one of which coincides with the one you received in the post and that is the one that does not agree with the date times of PoFA. Thus breaching not only the Act, but also the IPC  Code of Conduct and the ability of UKPCM to obtain data from the DVLA.

So leave that part of the letter as good to go. However as it is as Dave [Thank you Dave!} pointed out that it is UKPCM and not UKPCI have amended the letter and posted it below.

 

My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint.

UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge. 

This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA.

 I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPCM to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and it is unfair to misguide motorists.

I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...