GroupNexus ANCR PCN - Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE5 5TZ

[little old lady]

Hi

1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27

2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue)

3 Date received Monday 15/04/24

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

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No 

7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T

'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice'

.......................

I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident.

My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying.

The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th.

Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time?

All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10/04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!).

My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof?

[lookinforinfo]

Hi welcome to the Forum. 

If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

The PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument.

All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not.

Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

I'm afraid I've had to hide your post with the pdf files to keep this anonymous for you. You've left the PCN reference number and your car reg showing.

Could you edit that and repost please?

HB

 

 

[little old lady]

Hi and thanks

It looks like they ticked all the boxes to me but I'll try and upload the notice.

I was wondering if a witness to late delivery might be considered proof

- I'm assuming they posted it as normal but Royal Mail stuffed up delivery.

If not then they're really saying it just has to be posted within 12 days of the incident, regardless of when it is received. Annoying!

edit ok thanks Honeybee here's my 2nd (actually 3rd) attempt at anonymising, copying and uploading the notice! Sorry about the state of it - I sat on it while distracted by my dog

 

2024-04-08 GroupNexus PCN event 2024-03-28.pdf

[Nicky Boy]

Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one.

Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged.

My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it.

Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court.

Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up.

It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...

 

[little old lady]

Hmm yes I see your point about proof of postage but nonetheless...

"A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid,  must be delivered either

1. (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or
2. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked

A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales."

My question there is really what might constitute proof?

Since you say the issue of delivery is a common one I suppose that no satisfactory answer has been established or you would probably have told me.

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

The PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument.

a 'witness' to it not arriving till the 15th is sadly immaterial too.

regardless to the above anyway, the PCN remains valid. 

[little old lady]

Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation:

The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved"

in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof.

It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested.

Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...

[dx100uk]

you need to bear-in-mind that these 'regulations' you are reading, are not such, they are only guidelines by their buddies at the IPC (old boys network like the other one - the BPA) they are not LAWS. if members dont abide by them...so what....

Legally, like documents even from a court, (which they give 5 days service on) - 1st class mail, regardless to the postal service/operator used, is deemed as served in 2 days, 2nd class is 5 days regardless. 

now, the fact that the postal service used might be responsible for a delayed delivery in both the above is sadly legally immaterial.

thought it is also, as i believe my fellow members have indicated? , worthy to note the other point broken point of the code of practice is it removes days toward discount.

with the above 2 reasons, should this ever goto court, thats the time to use them. not before. dont play your cards.

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN  does not comply with the wording  of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. 

First reason Section 9 [2] [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;"

Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"

All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or  parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping.

Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time.

So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far.

Although your question is now moot since  the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just  about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN.

There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment.

I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?

[little old lady]

Thanks for all the replies - all very helpful.

Sorry for the delay in responding - I forgot my password and managed to get myself locked out, which meant I could read but couldn't reply.

Dx100uk  Thanks for that very clear (and patient) explanation - I completely get that now. Ok so I'll drop that unless we get to court.

Lookinforinfo Good spot on Section 9 [2] [e] (i) - I think you're right they don't actually ask me to pay do they, they only say they have the right to recover the charge from me after 28 days.

Your 2nd point might be less convincing, given the length of time the vehicle was there. Sadly I don't know how long parking is permitted for free. Perhaps someone on here can help with that.

For context so you have the full picture,

the driver entered M1 Tibshelf services not expecting to park at all (and therefore didn't bother to look for parking signs), they were feeling a little funny and thought a coffee might help.

They drove into the petrol station area and pulled up in a parking bay at one side of the pumps and went in to get a take out coffee.

On returning to the vehicle they were suddenly overcome with a violent attack of dizziness and nausea and couldn't stay upright.

After lying flat and unable to move (and feeling extremely cold) for what was apparently some 4 hours they recovered enough to be able to drive on.

The coffee was now stone cold of course which was a very annoying waste of 3.50!

On recovering, the driver looked round without getting out of the van but couldn't see any signs at all near those few bays so mistakenly assumed the petrol station bays didn't have parking charges.

One more question - on other threads people have suggested contacting the land owner to ask them to drop the charge. How would I find out who the landowner is, or perhaps should I write to the manager of the petrol station?

[FTMDave]

If the driver was taken ill then there is a legal term called Frustration of Contract - i.e. that it was impossible to respect the contract/overstay times due to illness.

Do you have any proof of this?

From  https://motorwayservices.uk/Tibshelf#google_vignette  there is a free stay period of two hours, after that you have to fork out money.

Yes, contacting the organ grinder is always a good idea.  The CEO of Roadchef is  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-77835&c=Roadchef Motorways-CEO  Lay it on thick about the illness, attach any proof, and request they have the invoice cancelled..

 

[little old lady]

"Do you have any proof of this?" 

No no proof sadly, only that the vehicle arrived at 9pm and left at 01.27 - and who wants to drive in the middle of he night if they don't have to? I've read that pleading illness hasn't been accepted for appeals. Has Frustration of Contract been accepted in court then?

Thanks for the contact details - how should I handle revealing driver details when I contact him? Do I try to keep the driver anonymous or do I just take the risk and tell all?

[FTMDave]

There is a huge difference between Roadchef who presumably have some morals and are concerned about road safety ...

... and Group Nexus who are only interested in £££££.

So, yes, appealing and mentioning illness to Group Nexus won't wash because the PPCs are simply bloodsuckers.

But the organ grinder/Roadchef could well be a different story.  Emphasise the medical emergency, that the person would have been committing the offence of dangerous driving had they left in the condition they were in, etc. 

We say not to out the driver but I think you have to tell Roadchef that the driver was incapacitated and who that was.

To answer your question.  Yes, Frustration of Contract has been argued in court many times, including by Mystic Bertie last week - he won.

[lookinforinfo]

The Ceo is  [email protected]

In addition to frustration of parking you could also claim that had the driver not been ill they would not have stayed. therefore they were not parking as they intended to leave and was only detained by  illness.  it isn't as if they wer shopping, buying petrol or sightseeing-they wanted to go .