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 
        • Like
      • 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

PPM operator photos PCN - residential parking - 34-39 Magnolia House & 1-83 Cedar House Spelthorne Grove, Sunbury - on - Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7.


Recommended Posts

Today as the registered keeper of the vehicle photographed, I received a Parking Charge Notice, for a private land car park.

I have looked at streetview and I dont think the signs are noticeable, they were not placed on entry to the parking area, but on lampposts around the plot.

It's not ANPR monitored but must've had someone on foot as they had photo of the vehicle parked in a bay.

Is this one worth contesting or will it have to be paid?

1 Date of the infringement 28/5/24

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 4/6/24

3 Date received 10/6/24

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

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

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A

7 Who is the parking company? Parking&Property Management LTD

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] 34-39 Magnolia House & 1-83 Cedar House Spelthorne Grove, Sunbury - on - Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7.

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IPC.

It doesnt seem to.

It states they operate in accordance with the International Parking Community's Code of Practice (IPC).

On the back it says "Contesting this parking Charge" and under this heading it states that "all letters contesting a parking charge are carefully considered and replied to within 28 days.

Charges are put on hold until an appeals decision has been reached.

If we reject the appeal, you will be provided with the contact details of the Independent Appeals Service."

 

2024-06-04 PPM PCN event 2024-05-28.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Thank you for all the information, you've been really efficient/

It's almost always worth contesting these, but please don't appeal to PPM. It's a waste of time and can lose you some legal protections.

I expect the forum guys will be along a bit later to start dissecting your case for you.

Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PPM operator PCN - 34-39 Magnolia House & 1-83 Cedar House Spelthorne Grove, Sunbury - on - Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7.

the pcn should have been attached to the windscreen not sent in the post.

so await the NTK, lets see what time rules they want to play too.

probably find its not a PPM operator but a local that dobbs people in for a backhander from PPM hence cant write out tickets at the time.

thread  title updated

so you were visiting someone in cedar house?

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to PPM operator photos PCN - residential parking - 34-39 Magnolia House & 1-83 Cedar House Spelthorne Grove, Sunbury - on - Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7.

The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.

Under Section 9 [2][a] it should specify the period of parking. It doesn't . There may be times on the photos but they do not qualify as the photos are separate from the PCN. In any event between the times shown on the photos  and on the PCN [four minutes '] it is not long enough to have issued a PCN unless they have other photos showing your car was there for longer.

Under S9 [2][f] it states  

(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 have missed out the words in brackets. Either of those two failures mean that the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. Only the driver is liable. 

As long as they do not know who was driving they will have great difficulty in winning should it ever get to court. Especially as the Courts do not assume that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

You are right too about their signs being poor. First there is nothing at the entrance of the complex that it is private land with parking restrictions. {Well it didn't according to the pictures I saw taken in 2022 and that may have changed]. Second the font size is too small to comply with regulations.

Because you cannot park there without a permit  the signs cannot offer a contract to you . You were therefore trespassing which only the land owner can pursue you for.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the responses. Just a few follow up questions in light of what's been said:
 
If I dont appeal to PPM, who can I appeal to?
 
Why should the PCN been attached to the windscreen? Is this written in law?
 
I assumed the document I had received was the NTK, if this is not the case, what does a NTK look like?
 
Regarding the compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act, could the "period" of parking not be argued either way?
 
The legislation doesnt state it must have a start/end time of parking, which I assumed an ANPR camera would pick up if it had one.
Is 4 minutes not technically enough to show the vehicle was parked? 
 
Thanks !
Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly you sound like you work the claimant

yes affixed

dont appeal to anyone

no cant be “argued either way”

 

  • Like 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't appeal to anyone.

You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts.

It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on.

You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.

  • Like 1

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

16 hours ago, dx100uk said:

so you were visiting someone in cedar house?

Can you please answer this point.

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

In answer to your questions

yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK.

Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed.

In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued.

It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site.

A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period.

I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way. 

All they have mentioned is the incident time which is insufficient.

There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself.

The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes.

if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed.

You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for your responses.

The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter.

On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped?

This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I've understood correctly, you had a meeting with a company who employ PPM to manage their car park, but PPM gave you a ticket and the company refuse to get it cancelled.  Eh???!!!

You are being somewhat secretive with the details and it would help us to give correct advice if you would be crystal clear about the story.  Who did you have the meeting with?  What is their address?  Why do you think it was them who called in PPM?  Were you informed about the matter of the permit by this company?  Etc.

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

I thought the advice on this page was to not confirm who the driver of the vehicle was, as a lot seems to be pinned on that being a key point in my defence as the vehicles registered keeper?

That said, whether I was driving or not, I was there, I met with some people who work for the company who own the land on an unrelated work matter. I'm assuming as the company are the freeholders of the land they would've engaged PPM to manage the parking? Else who would instruct them to do so and allow poor signage to be put up?

But on speaking with the people from the company who I met, they said that they have also received PCNs before and could not get them waived, in future they suggest parking on the roadside instead.

Which I think is very odd, which is why I wonder if they're not telling me the full story, and perhaps I was caught out deliberately.

The company never made me aware of parking restrictions at this location prior to our planned meeting.

Does this clarify the matter at all?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it clarifies nothing.

As you say, there is a contradiction in that this company's employees have received invoices yet it is assumed they called the parking company in.

I would suspect - and it is only a suspicion - that someone else called in the parking company to "manage" the whole estate.

While you are dealing with this verbally anyone can come out with any old baloney and you'll have no proof of it.  You need a paper trail.  So e-mail the company, pointing out the reasons for your meeting with them and that you were not abusing the car park, and request they get the ticket cancelled. 

That way they will have to reply in writing and you can get to the bottom of this matter.

  • Like 1

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

I went back to the area, this photo is taken on entry.

My vehicle was parked in the first space on the left. 

Would you say there is sufficient signage ?

It’s different to the street view as one sign is missing.

The sign nearest to where I parked is 2.23m above ground!

even if the car had been reversed parked in front of it, I don’t think it could be seen

Entrance photo.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done with the photo.

Of course the signage is insufficient.  PPM are not interested in competent management of a car park, they are interested in catching drivers out so they can issue their PCNs.

For a start, according to their trade associations' Codes of Practice, they are supposed to have signage at the entrance.

Any e-mail reply from the company and whether they will/won't/can/can't get the invoice cancelled?

 

 

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

I’m tempted to send a letter to the company outlining the reasons why I think their PCN is illegitimate.

I guess will technically be an appeal.  

Their documentation states they won’t discuss over phone, I also don’t want them to have my email address. 

re signage on entrance, having looked at land registry, the whole road is private, and when you turn into the road off the highway, there is a sign on the lamppost about 20m in, again not noticeable and on the other side of the road. 

I feel like I am in a difficult position with this, I understand that I may have a good chance of not having to pay, but at the same token the stress this is already causing me makes me feel like it’s not worth the £60!

I’ve also just realised their online website they’ve got 12 photographs of my vehicle, including close ups of the inside??

Not sure why that’s relevant. 


The time stamp on the first photo is 13:57, the PCN incident time is 14:12. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for the photos is to show you weren't displaying a permit.  They are supposed to check that the permit hadn't fallen off the dashboard.

There is no point in appealing to PPM.  The very people who deliberately set up the site with rubbish signage to catch motorists out are highly unlikely to find against themselves.

You've said several times that you think the company who you met with called PPM in so these are the people you need to contact in writing to request they call PPM off.  Until you do so we're going round in circles.

If you don't want them to have your e-mail address simply set up a secondary e-address.

 

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

we need all the photos on their website please too.

i mass PDF only!
read upload

 

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

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...