Another PCN case on private land

[calvoboy]

Hi all,

 

I've just found this site and wish that I'd found it sooner! I'm sorry for posting this, as I know there is plenty of similar information on here already. I've read the legal briefing notes, but was hoping for some confirmation on what I should do, as my situation doesn't quite fit with the advice provided.

 

My situation is that I received a ticket for overstaying a 2 hour limit in a private car park (a DIY shop), when in fact I was there for nowhere near 2 hours. Not knowing the legality, I quickly appealed against the notice using the sort of language that I would for appealing against a council issued charge:

 

I am writing to appeal against a penalty charge that was affixed to my windscreen at xxxx car park in xxxxx Street this morning at 11:47am. Serial number xxxxxxxx

The attendant claims on the form that my vehicle was sited there at 9:30am and so by 11:47am I had been parked there over the 2 hour limit.

In actual fact, at 9:30am this morning, I was just coming up the slip road of junction X of the M1 having been held up in traffic. I finally arrived in xxx at 10:08am for a brief meeting in the building next door, after which I was going to load my car with some shopping to take home at lunchtime. Three people who were at the meeting can testify that I arrived approximately 10 minutes late for that 10am meeting, and the building security cameras will have me entering the building at 10:10am.

I actually saw your attendant issuing the ticket at 11:47am as I was going to the shop, and politely challenged him as to why he was issuing it. His response was that “your car was seen at 9:30am, there’s nothing I can do”. This is a blatant lie, and he could offer no proof whatsoever to back up his claim.

So, in short:

· my car was not there at 9:30am as claimed by your attendant

· It didn’t actually arrive in the car park until 10:08am

· I did not overstay the two hour limit

· I will not be paying the fine.

I hope that you can bring this to a speedy conclusion by admitting your mistake in this instance and revoking the penalty charge.

I realise now that I gave away far more information than was required, and that I could have just ignored the notice. They have responded to my letter by rejecting my appeal and telling me to pay up within 7 days.

Based on the advice on here, I was planning to respond using the wording:

"As I have already explained in my appeal letter, my car was not parked there at the time stated on your charge notice. I am completely innocent of any offence and therefore see your charge as unlawful, unenforceable and I am not liable. I will not be providing any payment and I consider that your continued pursuit of this matter will constitute an offence under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. I consider the matter closed and am explicitly instructing you not to contact me again for any reason, other than to confirm that the matter is in fact now closed."

 

The company who issued the notice is Vehicle Control Services, at wheel-clamping.co.uk in case that is relevant.

 

Does this sound sensible? Or have I already said something wrong in my appeal letter? And could they pursue this further through the county courts? Their website boasts that "Vehicle Control Services do pursue all unpaid PCN's through to a Court Summons"

[Rob S]

In your case you have admitted to being the driver at the time. However you state that you did not exceed their time limit, but their attendent claims you did. If they go as far as taking you to county court for this you have witnesses who can testify to that. Your response to their "appeal" states your position clearly. Let them do the chasing from now on.

[djweeble]

Isn't this just a case of a non enforceable charge ?

[diskmandave]

Just to add to the OP's & Rob's comments.....

 

If this ever does come to County Court as a civil debt, as the OP has admitted to being the driver purported to be entering into said contract, the OP already has and has submitted more than sufficient evidence to the contrary that the "contravention" did not occur, and that the claimant is a vexacious litigant...