Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: sinbad1977 on February 08, 2025, 04:34:40 pm

Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: sinbad1977 on February 10, 2025, 11:58:44 am
Very swiftly overturned on appeal. Thanks for all your help
Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: sinbad1977 on February 09, 2025, 10:40:25 am
Will do. Thank you for your help
Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: b789 on February 09, 2025, 10:27:43 am
Appeal with the following:

Quote
This is an appeal of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with registration [Vehicle Registration]. The notice alleges "failure to pay for the duration of stay" on 23rd January 2025. The Registered Keeper denies any liability for this charge, even if your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is claimed to be compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)..

Grounds for Appeal

1. Adherence to the Consideration and Grace Periods

Your signage clearly states that "all vehicles must obtain a pay to park session within 15 minutes of entry to the car park." This consideration period ensures that motorists have adequate time to read the terms, decide whether to stay, and purchase a parking ticket if required.

The driver purchased a parking ticket at 13:14, covering a 30-minute period up to 13:44. The vehicle exited at 13:46:45, meaning the total duration of stay was 31 minutes and 34 seconds. Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), an additional grace period of at least 10 minutes must be allowed after the paid parking session for motorists to leave the car park. No contravention could have occurred given the combined consideration and grace periods.

2. Discrepancy Between ANPR and Ticket Machine

There is a clear discrepancy between your ANPR entry timestamp of 13:15:11 and the parking ticket purchase time of 13:14. This raises significant doubts about the accuracy and synchronisation of your systems. Without synchronised systems, there is no credible evidence to support your claim.

3. No Contravention of Terms

The driver complied fully with the terms displayed on your signage. The parking ticket covered the entire duration of stay, and no terms were breached. The claim is baseless, and the Registered Keeper denies liability.

Strict Proof Required

The operator is put to strict proof to provide:

• Evidence of the synchronisation between the ANPR system and the ticket machine.
• Evidence that the alleged timings are accurate and free from tampering.
• Evidence that the consideration and grace periods required by the PPSCoP were properly applied.

Formal Denial of Liability

This PCN is unfounded, and I request its immediate cancellation. If you refuse, I require a detailed explanation and evidence as outlined above.

Failure to cancel this PCN will result in a formal complaint being lodged with relevant authorities, including reports of potential breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: sinbad1977 on February 08, 2025, 05:52:35 pm
I'm pretty certain it's recorded correctly. I've compared with other permits and it appears identical. VRN does contain letter 'O'
Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: b789 on February 08, 2025, 05:46:25 pm
And is the VRM correctly recorded on the permit? Could there be any confusion over an "O" or a "0" or an "I" and a "1"?
Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: sinbad1977 on February 08, 2025, 05:05:37 pm
Thank you. There is a requirement to input VRN which does show on ticket but which I redacted. There is a time discrepancy with the machine. Only a minute or two.
Title: Re: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: b789 on February 08, 2025, 05:02:32 pm
It's actually a 15 minute "consideration period". Once parked though, that does not matter anymore. What does matter is the "grace period" at the end of the parking session, which is 10 minutes according to Annex B of the PPSCoP.

It is fairly obvious that the charge is wrong as it alleges that the driver "failed to pay for the duration of the stay". As you can evidence a permit that covers the period of parking and that the vehicle left within the permitted time, we have to wonder why they have actually issued this PCN.

I'm actually dealing privately for a PCN issued at the exact same location although in that case, the driver never purchased a permit in the first place.

Is there a requirement to input the vehicle VRM when purchasing a permit? The permit shown does not show any VRM.

There also appears to be an anomaly between the time of the permit purchase and the ANPR entry time. The ANPR shows the vehicle entering the car park at 13:15 yet the permit shows purchase at 13:14, a full minute before the vehicle even entered the car park!

Before we move on to any appeal, can you please provide some answers to the above questions.
Title: National Parking Control Group Ltd - 94 second overstay
Post by: sinbad1977 on February 08, 2025, 04:34:40 pm
Some advice please. Received NTK from company above. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. Driver paid at machine for 30 minutes parking. Duration of stay was recorded by ANPR as 31 minutes 34 seconds. Signage seems to suggest 15 minute grace period. Grateful for advice on how to proceed

https://imgur.com/a/fbJtZ7D