Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - clintaugh

Pages: [1]
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 14, 2025, 10:25:23 am »
See attached; not materially different to original draft.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

2
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 13, 2025, 10:41:03 pm »
Appreciate your view, but IMO some of the terminolgy was a bit heavy.  We all have our own style of presentation and not a criticism of yours, but if I am communicating I will use my own.   I do have a degree of experience with small claims, tribunals and appeals; albeit a novice when it comes to parking regulations.  Certainly no love and kisses at the end; perhaps more succint, but same message. :)

3
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 13, 2025, 05:42:26 pm »
See my earlier response, which is self explanatory!

4
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 13, 2025, 02:29:08 pm »
Appreciate your view, but IMO some of the terminolgy was a bit heavy.  We all have our own style of presentation and not a criticism of yours, but if I am communicating I will use my own.   I do have a degree of experience with small claims, tribunals and appeals; albeit a novice when it comes to parking regulations.  Certainly no love and kisses at the end; perhaps more succint, but same message. :)

5
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 13, 2025, 12:50:34 pm »
Again thank you for quick reply.

I have now sent letetr to HCF via email; slightly toned down :) , and will ensure you see their reply.

Also, sugested, I will set up a separate thread re the Gatwick charge.

6
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 13, 2025, 11:00:58 am »
Again thanks for prompt reply.

Similar to GXS, it's about HCF paying charge without first informing me.  I have attached FYI details of what I have sent to the Ombudsman; albeit it might have helped if I had come across your site earlier :)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

7
Private parking tickets / Re: Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 13, 2025, 10:08:32 am »
Thank you for the prompt  reply.

The terminology “fine” is certainly used by HCF, as noted in the attached documentation; although not entirely sure if this breaches their terms of contract.  My primary issue with HCF is the disagreement on interpretation of the T&C wording.  HCF state this allows them to pay charges without first notifying me; whereas I consider the clear implication is that I will be informed of the charge and take responsibility. 

At the very least their T&Cs are ambiguous , and as such I believe I am protected by the Consumer Protection Act that includes a requirement for  a test of fairness.  FYI, I currently have an ongoing  dispute with HCF for a drop off charge at Gatwick, which is currently with the Ombudsman. I am happy to provide you with a summary of that matter if you consider it would be helpful.

I am also of the view that GSX, having failed to place a PCN on the vehicle, and immediately obtaining keeper details from DVLA  have not complied with the legislation, and if so dose this invalidate the PCN?


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

8
Private parking tickets / Compliance - Protection of Freedoms Act
« on: January 12, 2025, 11:27:23 am »

I lease my car through Hyundai (HCF) and recently received an e mail from them to advise they were notified of a private parking charge and had paid the fine in the sum of £60.00, which they would recharge to me together with an admin fee of £30.00.  HCF claim their T&Cs enable them to do this without first informing me of the charge. I view differently and at some point I will refer to the Ombudsman for a decision. Taking that aside my query is whether or not the parking company and/or HCF have complied with the rules set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act relating to parking fines.

My car was parked on private land and  displayed a valid parking ticket; however the fine related to the allegation it was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.  This may be correct, but at time of parking there was only one space available, at the entrance to the car park, and my car was parked appropriately in line with the neighbouring vehicle and did not prevent any other vehicle from parking.  At the time of the alleged contravention the car park had emptied out, which is why photograph displays a single parking bay line. The area is not covered by ANPR and a fixed penalty notice was not placed on the car.  Instead, the parking company obtained keeper details from DVLA and sent a notice to keeper to HFC. My interpretation of PoFA is, unless there is ANPR used, the parking company should issue a ticket and must wait at least 28 days before applying to DVLA for keeper details.  Neither of these happened.  It is also my contention that HCF should be aware of these rules and had a legal responsibility to notify me before making a payment, and provide the parking company with the relevant information as detailed in sch 4(14) of PoFA, which they failed to do.  Am I correct in this interpretation?

A further issue being that once aware of the fine by HCF I returned to the car park to check and photograph signage and markings.  There was sufficient signage; however, although  there are no cameras, the signage states ANPR may be in use and no T&Cs are displayed, despite the fact the company website states T&Cs will be on display.  Would this have a bearing on the legitimacy of the fine.  I will further add that I have made second visit to the car park and notices have been replaced with new signage that includes T&Cs!  I have photographs of before and after.

At this point I have not approached the parking company, and am reluctant to do so following searches made at Companies House, which give me some concern regarding principals of the company.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1]