Author Topic: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne's Quarter, Norwich  (Read 393 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
The driver attended a property at Orbit Homes' St Anne's Quarter development in Norwich, in order to provide professional services to its owner.  The driver noted the extremely large 'Visitors Parking' sign to the car park, and left the vehicle there at approximately 0945hrs whilst visiting the subject property.  Upon their return approximately 5-10 minutes after parking, they noted that the following PCN had been affixed to their windscreen:







The first image is a bit poor - the PCN states no 'first seen at' time, and the time of issue is 0946hrs.

The below image shows the car park, with broader context available here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/weY24BGRmdk92bbV7)



This is the large 'visitor parking' sign, in front of which the driver parked:



The driver did not obtain photographs of the signage in the car park, but typical NTC yellow signs are visible in the image above, and contained text stating that vehicles had to be registered with the NTC database.

Any and all advice greatly appreciated!
« Last Edit: August 02, 2024, 02:19:26 pm by Snudge88 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
As a further update, the driver has spoken with Orbit who have said that they are unable to cancel the charge.

Is there anything the driver should be doing as a matter of urgency or, with windscreen tickets, is it a case of waiting until the NTK is received in the post?

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Bump - anyone able to offer any input, please?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Karma: +160/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
As it is an IPC operator, just wait for the NtK to be issued.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
As it is an IPC operator, just wait for the NtK to be issued.

Cheers, b789.

I'll wait for the NTK and then come back once it arrives.

The Rookie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
  • Karma: +11/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Warwickshire
    • View Profile
Did the contractual signs (not shared) give any restrictions on visitors parking such as needing a visitors permit or logging in to a terminal?
There are motorists who have been scammed and those who are yet to be scammed!

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
NTK now received (received today, despite the date of sending stating 3rd September 2024).  Details below:









Is the notice POFA compliant?  Otherwise, does anyone have any experience of Norwich Traffic Control?  Are they the kind to avoid taking matters to court if there is any hint that the keeper is up for a fight, or are they best not to be messed with?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2024, 05:15:44 pm by Snudge88 »

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Karma: +160/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
You may want to redact your personal data from those photos, such as your name, address, VRM and PCN number. I just tried to log into the appeals website with your details and it say the following:



The NtK is mostly PoFA compliant as far as I can see except for the "period of parking" being only specified as "the period immediately preceding...".

The NtD and the NtK both fail to comply with PoFA paragraphs 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) respectively, which require the notice to "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The NtD and NtK provided by NTC do not specify a period of parking, but instead only give a single timestamp of 0948. A single point in time does not constitute a "period" of parking as required by law. The notices should indicate the duration during which the vehicle was allegedly parked.

If the alleged contravention states "Unauthorised parking" and the NtD or NtK only provide a single point in time without specifying the period of parking, it does not comply with the requirements of PoFA, even with the "unauthorised parking" allegation.

PoFA still mandates that the notice must "specify the period of parking" regardless of the nature of the contravention, whether it's for overstaying, failing to pay, or "unauthorised parking." The reason is that the term "parking" inherently refers to a period during which the vehicle is stationary. Therefore, to prove "unauthorised parking", NTC must establish that the vehicle was parked for a specific period without authorisation, not just at a single moment.

A single timestamp, such as 0948, does not show the vehicle was "parked" or unauthorised for a period of time, making it difficult to substantiate the contravention. The failure to specify a period of parking is non-compliant with the statutory requirements of PoFA.

However, you are dealing with an IPC member and no appeal (not that, apparently, they are giving you any chance to appeal anyway) is going to succeed with them or the IAS. You are going to have to sit this out, ignoring all reminders and debt collector letters and wait and see if/when they decide to issue a claim for the alleged debt. If/when they do, then come back and we can advise on how to defend any claim.

TO assist you in future, if/when they decide to try and make a claim, you are advised to get your own evidential photos of the entrance to the location and an overview of the actual car park area and a close up of the terms signs so that we can scrutinise them for breaches of contract law and the IPC Code of Practice (CoP).
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
You may want to redact your personal data from those photos, such as your name, address, VRM and PCN number. I just tried to log into the appeals website with your details and it say the following:



The NtK is mostly PoFA compliant as far as I can see except for the "period of parking" being only specified as "the period immediately preceding...".

The NtD and the NtK both fail to comply with PoFA paragraphs 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a) respectively, which require the notice to "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The NtD and NtK provided by NTC do not specify a period of parking, but instead only give a single timestamp of 0948. A single point in time does not constitute a "period" of parking as required by law. The notices should indicate the duration during which the vehicle was allegedly parked.

If the alleged contravention states "Unauthorised parking" and the NtD or NtK only provide a single point in time without specifying the period of parking, it does not comply with the requirements of PoFA, even with the "unauthorised parking" allegation.

PoFA still mandates that the notice must "specify the period of parking" regardless of the nature of the contravention, whether it's for overstaying, failing to pay, or "unauthorised parking." The reason is that the term "parking" inherently refers to a period during which the vehicle is stationary. Therefore, to prove "unauthorised parking", NTC must establish that the vehicle was parked for a specific period without authorisation, not just at a single moment.

A single timestamp, such as 0948, does not show the vehicle was "parked" or unauthorised for a period of time, making it difficult to substantiate the contravention. The failure to specify a period of parking is non-compliant with the statutory requirements of PoFA.

However, you are dealing with an IPC member and no appeal (not that, apparently, they are giving you any chance to appeal anyway) is going to succeed with them or the IAS. You are going to have to sit this out, ignoring all reminders and debt collector letters and wait and see if/when they decide to issue a claim for the alleged debt. If/when they do, then come back and we can advise on how to defend any claim.

TO assist you in future, if/when they decide to try and make a claim, you are advised to get your own evidential photos of the entrance to the location and an overview of the actual car park area and a close up of the terms signs so that we can scrutinise them for breaches of contract law and the IPC Code of Practice (CoP).

Thanks b789, much appreciated.  I've uploaded new images - I hadn't realised that my personal details are emblazoned all over the fourth page as well!

Is it worth pre-emptively contacting them to state that their NTK and NTD are not POFA compliant (and that I shall be using this defence should they choose to take further action) in an attempt to nip any further action in the bud?  Or is it better to sit tight and wait and see what they do next?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Karma: +160/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
To be honest, as they are IPC members, there is little point in challenging them to anything. You are dealing with greedy ex-clampers who are only interested in getting as much money out of you as possible.

Maybe the others on here will suggest otherwise, however, if I were in your position, I would sit tight and wait and see if they decide to take it court. They may never do so. They may threaten to do so and still not do so. They may even start a claim but not bother to see it all the way through in the hope that the threat of litigation is enough to scare you into paying.

You will receive a load of reminders and subsequently, loads of debt collector letters, which can all be ignored as they have no power to do anything and are sent with the same purpose of trying to scare you into capitulating and paying up. The only thing you would need to look out for is a Letter of Claim (LoC) which will look similar to a debt collection letter but will give you 30 days to pay as opposed to all the debt collector letters which only give you 14 or less days to pay.

If you get an LoC, then come back. Whilst it is advisable to respond to an LoC, it is not essential. However, as an LoC is a precursor to an actual county court claim, (if) when an actual N1SDT claim form arrives, it must be responded to and you should let us know so that we can provide the correct guidance and advice.

As the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service, it is in any defence that you can plead the breaches of PoFA etc.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
I went back to site today to get some additional photos/video. Here's the driver's-eye-view video I made of accessing the site:

https://youtu.be/BjsleI5ljhk?feature=shared

There is a sign upon entering the site, but it is anything but prominent. It's pretty much hidden behind a buttress on an adjoining building:

https://i.imgur.com/d45XpJA.jpeg

Full sign:

https://i.imgur.com/28p9ptH.jpeg

Text of warning signs:

https://i.imgur.com/d2jzKsT.jpeg

And here's the general 'turn-in' view, showing just how obscured the entry sign is:



Any thoughts? Let me know if there are any more images etc., that might be useful.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Karma: +160/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Keep the video as the entrance sign is not even visible as you go in. Have a read of page 27 of the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) and tell us if you think that signs conforms to the requirements?

IPC Code of Practice v9
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2570
  • Karma: +76/-1
    • View Profile
Even from close up that entrance sign is faded to the point of near illegibility.

Snudge88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Keep the video as the entrance sign is not even visible as you go in. Have a read of page 27 of the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) and tell us if you think that signs conforms to the requirements?

IPC Code of Practice v9

It seems to be a veritable smorgasbord of ineptitude...

Entry Sign
  • Illegible based on the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign
  • Fading has reduced colour contrast
  • Sign not made of suitably robust material
  • Type of parking not made clear
  • No Group 1 wording present
  • Text smaller than prescribed minimum capital height
  • Sign not positioned in driver's line of sight
  • Presence of blue/white 'P' infers an invitation to park, despite are being Controlled Land

T&Cs Sign
  • No identification of 'The Creditor'

Anything I've missed here?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2570
  • Karma: +76/-1
    • View Profile
Those are all useful points... In terms of the order in which you present, bear in mind that in the Code of Practice, "should" is not the same as "must".

Things that the code says they "must" do should (no pun intended) in my view be afforded more prominence in any appeal/Defence than things it says they "should" do, which implies something which is good practice, but not necessarily mandatory.

As an example, the fact that their signs are not made of suitably robust matierial isn't all that important on its own, but, this has led to the text becoming illegible, which is important, as a motorist cannot be bound by terms that have not been adequately brought to his attention.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2024, 08:36:45 pm by DWMB2 »
Agree Agree x 1 View List