Author Topic: Parking Control Management (PCM) PCN No e-Permit/loading ~10 mins Residential Estate, Kingsbury, London  (Read 40 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Beardyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Location: Google Maps Link

Entrance before slip road: GSV Link

Entrance to slip road: GSV Link

Entrance to estate: GSV Link

I am the registered keeper and received this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Parking Control Management (PCM) with a reason stating that the VRM was not registered on the e-Permit System (ANPR). The registered keeper's details and VRM on the PCN are correct. The entry and exit times state that the vehicle was there for a duration of 11 minutes.

Context/Explanation:
The driver was collecting a wardrobe panel from a ground floor flat at this location. The flat is at road level and has a garage. The driver stopped the car in front of the garage and proceeded to load the wardrobe panels onto the roof bars of the car. The driver did not move far from the car (i.e. the car was stopped in the mouth of the garage) or leave the car unattended, and a passenger was still inside the stationary car.

There was no clear signage indicating that the estate can only be entered by authorised vehicles.

This charge seems unfair as there was no attempt to park or break any rules.

Attachments:

PCN (with personal details redacted):
Page 1: https://imgur.com/EbbmSTY
Page 2: https://imgur.com/p0CTYQb

I have drafted a response which I will paste into the reply below (which may or may not help).

It would be much appreciated if someone could help.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2024, 04:01:07 pm by Beardyman »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Beardyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Draft response:

I am writing to formally challenge the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to my vehicle [Vehicle Registration Number] on [Date]. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and believe that the charge is unfair and invalid for the following reasons:

No Breach of Terms and Conditions:
The vehicle was stopped in front of a garage at a ground floor flat, and the driver was actively loading a wardrobe panel onto the roof bars. The vehicle was not parked in the legal sense but was engaged in the process of loading/unloading. There was no clear or conspicuous signage indicating that such activity was prohibited. Therefore, the vehicle did not breach any terms and conditions of parking.

Insufficient Signage:
Upon review of the site, it was found that the signage was not clearly visible or adequately positioned to convey the parking restrictions to drivers. The entrance to the estate did not have clear signage stating that it is a controlled parking area requiring authorisation. According to the BPA Code of Practice, parking terms must be prominently displayed. This was not the case, thus making the charge unenforceable.

Grace Period:
According to the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable grace period must be allowed for drivers to enter, read the terms and conditions, and leave the site if they decide not to stay. The vehicle was present on the site for only 11 minutes, which should be considered within a reasonable grace period for loading/unloading activities.

No Evidence of Parking:
The vehicle was never left unattended, and a passenger remained in the vehicle at all times. Under the legal definition of parking, as per case law, the vehicle was not parked. The presence of a passenger indicates that the vehicle was not stationary for parking purposes but was temporarily stopped for a legitimate purpose.

Compliance with POFA 2012:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) sets out specific requirements for holding the registered keeper liable for a parking charge if the driver is not identified. I received the PCN on 9th July for an alleged contravention on 28th June, which raises concerns about compliance with POFA regarding the timing of the Notice to Keeper.

I request confirmation that the PCN complies fully with the requirements of POFA 2012, including:

The Notice to Keeper was issued and delivered within the required timeframe as specified by POFA.
The Notice includes all necessary information as stipulated by POFA, such as the details of the charge, the reason for the charge, the period of parking, the vehicle involved, and the steps taken to identify the driver.
The Notice was properly served and meets all other relevant protocols outlined in POFA Schedule 4.
If the PCN fails to comply with any of these requirements, then the registered keeper cannot be held liable, and the charge must be cancelled.

I request that you cancel this PCN immediately. Should you choose to reject this appeal, please provide me with a POPLA verification code so that I may escalate my appeal to the independent adjudicator.

Supporting Evidence:
Photographs of the signage and site
Google Street View links showing the entrance and lack of clear signage

I trust this clarifies my position and look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
You have quoted the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) but PCM are not BPA members, they are IPC members.

It would not really matter though. CPM will reject any appeal, no matter which AoS the belonged to. As there is now a new joint CoP with both the BPA and the IPC, there is already a breach noticed. The photos used in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) have been digitally altered or cropped which is a breach of the new CoP section 7.4 because the image on the NtK does not have a time-stamp as required in 7.3(b).

The only problem is that had PCM been BPA AoS members, the keeper could appeal to POPLA. However, as they are IPC members the keeper can only appeal to the IAS and successful appeals to the IAS are as rare as hens teeth.

The fact that the driver was loading/unloading is a very good defence, amongst other things, but will only succeed if the case ever gets in front of a judge, who is the only truly independent arbiter. Jopson v Homeguard is the relevant persuasive case that applies.

Good luck with the appeal but my crystal balls are telling me that your appeal will be rejected at this stage.

What we don't know at this stage, was the driver just picking up the cargo or does the driver actually live there too?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Quote
my crystal balls
Ooh err Missus. Keep those to yourself.

As noted, switch those BPA references to relevant new Code of Practice.

Beardyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
You have quoted the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) but PCM are not BPA members, they are IPC members.

It would not really matter though. CPM will reject any appeal, no matter which AoS the belonged to. As there is now a new joint CoP with both the BPA and the IPC, there is already a breach noticed. The photos used in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) have been digitally altered or cropped which is a breach of the new CoP section 7.4 because the image on the NtK does not have a time-stamp as required in 7.3(b).

The only problem is that had PCM been BPA AoS members, the keeper could appeal to POPLA. However, as they are IPC members the keeper can only appeal to the IAS and successful appeals to the IAS are as rare as hens teeth.

The fact that the driver was loading/unloading is a very good defence, amongst other things, but will only succeed if the case ever gets in front of a judge, who is the only truly independent arbiter. Jopson v Homeguard is the relevant persuasive case that applies.

Good luck with the appeal but my crystal balls are telling me that your appeal will be rejected at this stage.

What we don't know at this stage, was the driver just picking up the cargo or does the driver actually live there too?

Thanks for the reply. The pictures help the driver in that they show the car leaving with wardrobe panels on the roof. Do you think the uncropped pictures are available on their website if one goes to pay the fine? Would it be okay to do that to see the pictures (and would that nullify the argument that you posed) or will accessing the online ticket start an irreversible process?

The resident who the driver was collecting from is trying to contact the estate's parking management team to get the ticket cancelled, as they have been successful doing that in the past. Their contact is on holiday until Monday, so they have been pointed to UKCPM to try and get it cancelled directly.

The notice says that the discounted rate applies "if this Parking Charge Notice is paid within 14 days from the Issued Date". The letter was dated 2nd July 2024, but was delivered through the postbox on 9th July 2024. So half of that period has already passed. If the timer for the discount starts from the day after the notice date, then the residents contact in the estate's parking team should be back in time to get it cancelled if there is no luck via UKCPM.

With that aside, there may be a grace period of 10 minutes according to the resident, but there was no parking that took place. The notice says they were there for 11 minutes, with entry at 15:54 (no seconds mentioned) and exit at 16:05 (no seconds mentioned). As the seconds were not mentioned, it could have been between a few seconds or a full minute over the 10 minutes.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
If you go to the website as though to appeal, you should be able to see the file photos they have, if any. However, it matters not what is on the file photos, it is what is on the NtK that matters. Obviously, if one of the file photos is the one used in the NtK, then they should be identical and include the time-stamp.

The "discount" is simply a bribe to get the keeper to simply pay up so that the PPC den't have to go through all that pesky business of trying to intimidate them into paying up. It appears to already be working on you because you seem to be thinking about it too much.

As you've already been advised, Plan B appeal will be rejected. Plan C IAS appeal has about zero chance of being successful. Plan D, should it ever get that far, if at all, is your best bet at getting this monkey off your back. Plan A is still the easiest if the person you were visiting can get whoever contracted the ex-clamper scammers to cancel the PCN.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Beardyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
If you go to the website as though to appeal, you should be able to see the file photos they have, if any. However, it matters not what is on the file photos, it is what is on the NtK that matters. Obviously, if one of the file photos is the one used in the NtK, then they should be identical and include the time-stamp.

The "discount" is simply a bribe to get the keeper to simply pay up so that the PPC den't have to go through all that pesky business of trying to intimidate them into paying up. It appears to already be working on you because you seem to be thinking about it too much.

As you've already been advised, Plan B appeal will be rejected. Plan C IAS appeal has about zero chance of being successful. Plan D, should it ever get that far, if at all, is your best bet at getting this monkey off your back. Plan A is still the easiest if the person you were visiting can get whoever contracted the ex-clamper scammers to cancel the PCN.

I was more concerned with the discount timeframe in relation to when the contact returns to office and can get it cancelled.

Out of curiosity, is plan D going to Court?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
The discount timeframe is irrelevant to having the contractor telling their agent to cancel the PCN.

Yes, Plan D is if it went to county court small claims track. That is a long way off, if at all. Plan D is your best bet if Plan A does not work. Plans B and C are never likely to succeed. No money in it for the scammers.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Beardyman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The discount timeframe is irrelevant to having the contractor telling their agent to cancel the PCN.

Yes, Plan D is if it went to county court small claims track. That is a long way off, if at all. Plan D is your best bet if Plan A does not work. Plans B and C are never likely to succeed. No money in it for the scammers.

Perfect, thank you!  :)

I have a revised version of my letter above ready to send with your comments incorporated if Plan A fails.