Show Posts - hops

Appeal not contested, thanks to all that assisted.

I appreciate your response, thank you. I may have used that term on the basis that a little knowledge is a bad thing & in the belief that anything that I had written could not be used against me and perhaps not understanding that their response would also thereby be inadmissible as evidence. I had intended to add a few maps as you suggested and will delete the without prejudice from my written submission.

My deadline to submit my IAS appeal is the 11th. The restaurant have advised by email that they have requested Smart Parking to cancel the PCN but I have had no official confirmation this has happened as yet so am going to have to prepare my appeal in case it is required. I have drawn this up and would welcome any comments as to its content.To whom it may concern and without prejudice I wish to appeal the above parking charge on the following grounds: -1.   The first and main point of my appeal is the driver had never parked in any of the parking spaces controlled by the Mulberry restaurant or their agents.The car had been parked in the Sands car park which is controlled by Parking Eye and the relevant parking charge had been paid for the total duration of the stay.In order to access this car park, it is necessary to drive down a public access road at the side of the Mulberry restaurant and the CCTV images which the parking agents relied on in their notice to keeper only show the vehicle driving down that access road.2.   The alleged parking contravention took place on the 2nd of July 2025.The notice to keeper was issued on the 15th of July. Sch. 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is very clear and states the following: -(4)The notice must be given by—(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) 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.   On that basis, the notice does not appear to be compliant with those regulations. Whilst it may not be of any legal relevance the notice was actually not received until the 21st of July.3.   In order to attempt an early resolution I did email the restaurant to seek clarity as to whether the Sands car park is, as I presume, not controlled by themselves and explaining the situation and having sent them a copy of the PCN and proof that the parking charge to the relevant company was correctly levied they have advised in writing that they have instructed Smart Parking to cancel the PCN.

Following the expected rejection of my appeal I contacted the restaurant concerned asking for confirmation that they were not the landowner nor had any control over the car park where the vehicle was parked and also complaining about the actions of Smart Parking Limited. In fairness they replied almost straight away, asking for a copy of the PCN and a copy of the parking ticket that was obtained from the car park where the car actually was. Whilst not referring in any way to who the driver was those details have been supplied and they have said they will contact smart parking and get back to me as soon as possible. I also emailed Smart parking asking them for confirmation that the Sands car park is not controlled by their land owner and of course they said they would not provide that information.I will leave it a couple of days to see if I hear back from the restaurant, but in order that I can prepare for the IAS appeal process apart from the anomaly with the notice being served late and also the obvious factor that I do not believe the car was parked in any of the spaces allocated to the restaurant, is there anything else that I should mention? Thank you in anticipation.

Perhaps not surprisingly they have declined my initial appeal.

Quote from: Dave65 on 21 Jul, 2025 16:58Ymm, contravention 02-07,  issued 15-07, presumed delivery on 17-07, 1 day out to hold the keeper liable.It was only delivered today to the R/K address so I am dubious as to the claim it was issued on the 15th.

PCN [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

As the registered keeper of a car that was issued with a parking charge notice from a private parking company, I would welcome some advice. The notice alleges an overstay in a car park for the Mulberry restaurant in Saundersfoot, SA69 9HG on the 2nd of July 2025 between 14:40 and 16:30 hours. This overstay was allegedly backed up by CCTV. I am advised the driver parked in a car park adjacent to that location but to the best of their knowledge the only way of accessing the other car park is through a narrow alleyway which also allows access to the Mulberry restaurant car park. The car park where vehicle was parked is the Sands car park in Saundersfoot and this is controlled by a separate company, Parkingeye. The driver has a bank statement showing a payment to parkingeye and having spoken to their bank the bank confirms that that payment was made at 14:42, two minutes after the arrival time. The ticket purchased & issued by the machine on that site is no longer available.The vehicle was never parked in the Mulberry car park and before formally contesting the matter I would welcome whether any other advice should be taken on board or whether any relevant conditions on the parking company issuing the notice have not been complied with. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]