3. Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry  (Read 2011 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« on: »
Hi, I have received a Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry. The picture on the notice shows the picture on my car front and back. There is nothing on the notice evidencing I have left site. You are allowed to park for up to 3 hours, the car was removed in that time. I have read the sign, there is nothing that says you can't leave site, it just says customers only so I would of thought you have 3 hours to buy something. I would of thought it unlikely they can prove I left site, I didn't have passengers that stayed on site and that I didn't buy anything in the 3 hour period. Advice much appreciated on the next steps please. I have no evidence to say I did buy anything. It is addressed to the registered keeper. THey were not the driver but have told them on the 3rd September who the driver was. THe wording on the notice says 'If you were not the registered driver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name of the driver and a curretn address for the service for the driver AND pass this notice on to the driver.

Does this mean they write to the driver or is it assumed the notice is passed on?
Not sure what to do as 28 days after 21st August is tomorrow.
I am tempted to write something like.

Dear Sirs,
I have received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the period of parking to which this notice applies as prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc

Any help much appreciated. It is not allowing me to upload the PCN or the pics of the sign

Documents can be viewed here:
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/motoring-parking/ppc-s-parking-charge-notices/1688026-parking-charge-notice-for-leaving-site-at-central-six-coventry



Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #1 on: »
These are simple to defend as long as no one makes any procedural errors. You have stated above that the Keeper wrote to PPC and "threw the driver under the bus" by naming them. You then go on to suggest sending another appeal trying to rely on PoFA and declining to identify the driver, even though you know that the driver has already been identified.  ::)

So, trying to make sense of the situation... Did the Keeper transfer the liability from them to the driver correctly as stated in the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? Did they provide a name and valid address for service AND pass the NtK to the driver? What EXACTLY was done on 3rd September?

Once the Keeper notifies the PPC of the driver's identity and provides a valid and serviceable address for the driver and has passed the NtK to the driver, PoFA 9(2)(e)(ii) outlines that the PPC cannot hold the Keeper liable for the charge. At this point, liability is effectively transferred to the driver.

Under PoFA, the PPC is not explicitly required to issue a new notice directly to the driver. Instead, the PPC should pursue the identified driver directly for the parking charge. The driver, having been notified by the Keeper or the operator, can then appeal the PCN in their own right, as the liability has been transferred.

However, in practice, many operators will issue a new notice to the identified driver, but they are not strictly required to under PoFA. The driver should still respond and manage the PCN as though they have received formal notification.

If the PPC fails to take appropriate action against the driver and continues to pursue the Keeper despite notification, the Keeper may have grounds to challenge the PPC for not following PoFA correctly.

So, on to the allegation itself. What evidence have they provided to back up their allegation? Please show us an image of the NtK that was received, suitably redacted of personal info but leave all dates and times showing. Also, have you checked on the PPCs appeals website for any other evidential photos they may have? Do you have any photos of the signage at the location so we can see the exact wording that supposedly makes up the contract?

It is highly unlikely this would ever get to court, if it were to progress that far as these "left site" cases are commonly known as "toothbrush" cases because the poor legal reps that have tried to prosecute the claim in court on behalf of the claimant have been severely reprimanded by judges in the past for wasting court time with allegations that cannot be proven and should they try and do the same again, they should bring a toothbrush as they are likely to be incarcerated for their time wasting.

So, until we know all dates and the precise allegation made in the NtK, which PPC and whether an IPC or a BPA member, it is difficult to provide any more advice.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2024, 12:36:46 pm by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #2 on: »
Quote from: b789 on September 17, 2024, 12:30:54 pm
These are simple to defend as long as no one makes any procedural errors. You have stated above that the Keeper wrote to PPC and "threw the driver under the bus" by naming them. You then go on to suggest sending another appeal trying to rely on PoFA and declining to identify the driver, even though you know that the driver has already been identified.  ::)

So, trying to make sense of the situation... Did the Keeper transfer the liability from them to the driver correctly as stated in the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? Did they provide a name and valid address for service AND pass the NtK to the driver? What EXACTLY was done on 3rd September?

Once the Keeper notifies the PPC of the driver's identity and provides a valid and serviceable address for the driver and has passed the NtK to the driver, PoFA 9(2)(e)(ii) outlines that the PPC cannot hold the Keeper liable for the charge. At this point, liability is effectively transferred to the driver.

Under PoFA, the PPC is not explicitly required to issue a new notice directly to the driver. Instead, the PPC should pursue the identified driver directly for the parking charge. The driver, having been notified by the Keeper or the operator, can then appeal the PCN in their own right, as the liability has been transferred.

However, in practice, many operators will issue a new notice to the identified driver, but they are not strictly required to under PoFA. The driver should still respond and manage the PCN as though they have received formal notification.

If the PPC fails to take appropriate action against the driver and continues to pursue the Keeper despite notification, the Keeper may have grounds to challenge the PPC for not following PoFA correctly.

So, on to the allegation itself. What evidence have they provided to back up their allegation? Please show us an image of the NtK that was received, suitably redacted of personal info but leave all dates and times showing. Also, have you checked on the PPCs appeals website for any other evidential photos they may have? Do you have any photos of the signage at the location so we can see the exact wording that supposedly makes up the contract?

It is highly unlikely this would ever get to court, if it were to progress that far as these "left site" cases are commonly known as "toothbrush" cases because the poor legal reps that have tried to prosecute the claim in court on behalf of the claimant have been severely reprimanded by judges in the past for wasting court time with allegations that cannot be proven and should they try and do the same again, they should bring a toothbrush as they are likely to be incarcerated for their time wasting.

So, until we know all dates and the precise allegation made in the NtK, which PPC and whether an IPC or a BPA member, it is difficult to provide any more advice.

Thanks for the reply and encouraged they are easy to defend. The registered keeper has named the driver on the 3rd September.

The notice and sign on site have been uploaded here:

https://bigdavey.imgbb.com/

As you can see from the NTK they have taken a picture of the car front and back, there is no evidence of the driver or anyone in the car leaving site.

There has been subsequent notice received since the driver was named on the 3rd September. I'm assuming best to go back stating along the lines of no evidence of driver or driver leaving site or where the site even is
« Last Edit: September 17, 2024, 02:23:22 pm by Bigdavey »
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #3 on: »
Quote from: Bigdavey on September 17, 2024, 01:42:33 pm
there is evidence of the driver or anyone in the car leaving site.


I guess you meant to say that there is NO evidence.

The fact they didn't include it in the NTK doesn't mean they don't have any.  It may be worth making a Subject Access Request.  It wastes a little of their time too.
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #4 on: »
A potentially quicker thing to try first is to see if there are any other images on their online portal as b789 suggests.
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #5 on: »
You are right jr member, it was supposed to say No evidence, amended now.

I have phoned them up, they are re-issuing the Parking Charge Notice to the driver which hasn't been done yet. I can submit a request through to the appeals website asking for all photo evidence so I guess that the sensible thing to do and see what evidence they have.
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #6 on: »
Don't phone anyone. Communicate in writing - a phone call is worth as much as the paper it isn't written on.

Don't waste your appeal on a request for information that you can request by other means, the other posts on this thread have already told you two other ways to check for any other evidence.
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #7 on: »
 Ok, thanks.

There is no portal, only the appeals online form which they told me to use on the phone....(I won't phone them again)
There is a physical address to submit a subject access request
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #8 on: »
Have you checked if any photos come up when you enter your PCN number and reg on said appeals portal?

There is also an email address for SARs: https://g24.co.uk/privacy-notice/
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #9 on: »
No photos come up when entering required details on appeals portal. Goes straight to web form to submit appeal.

Only other option on the website I can see is:

dataprotection@g24.co.uk
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #10 on: »
DO NOT send an SAR. For heavens sake, they are obliged to show you any evidential photos they hold on their appeals site. Go as though to appeal and see if there are any other photos besides the two that are already on the PCN.

I will get back to you but there is no contractual liability. I just need to know whether a new notice has been sent to the driver or not.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #11 on: »
Here is my thoughts on what we have so far:

1. No Evidence of a Breach:

G24 has provided no evidence that anyone, never mind the driver, left the site. The only evidence in the NtK is the image of the vehicle parked in a marked bay.

There is no indication that the driver has violated any terms of the parking contract as per the sign evidenced. A vehicle being parked is not evidence that the driver breached any contractual terms.

2. Contract Only Binds the Driver:

Even if G24 had some form of evidence showing a person leaving the site, it could have been a passenger, who is not contractually bound by the parking terms.

The driver alone is subject to the contract, and G24 has not demonstrated that the driver left the site. Therefore, this cannot form the basis of the charge.

3. Undefined Site Boundaries:

The signage does not define the boundaries of the “site,” which leads to ambiguity regarding where the driver can and cannot go.

Ambiguous terms in a contract, particularly in consumer contracts, are required to be clear and transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. G24's failure to clearly define the site boundary renders this term unenforceable.

4. Photos Taken by an Operative:

The photos of the vehicle appear to have been taken by a PPC operative. If the operative suspected that a breach was about to occur (such as someone leaving the site), they had a duty to inform the driver at the time to avoid the alleged breach.

This failure to mitigate damages or breach puts into question the fairness of the parking charge.

5. No Loss or Damage to the Landowner:

G24 has suffered no discernible loss as the vehicle was parked within a marked bay. The parking charge is therefore penal in nature and does not reflect any actual loss or damage to the landowner.

In line with recent legal decisions (e.g., ParkingEye v Beavis), a parking charge must either reflect actual loss or be proportionate to the legitimate interest of the landowner, which G24 has not demonstrated in this case.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #12 on: »
Point #1 is the kicker for a 'not leaving site' breach. I don't think I've seen any such cases, especially not on retail parks, where they've had any decent evidence to substantiate the allegation.
Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #13 on: »
As G24 are a bunch of scamming ex-clamper thugs and member of the IPC, there is little point in mounting much of an appeal as whatever is pleaded will be rejected. As for an IAS appeal, my thoughts on those are well known.

If it is still possible for the driver to still appeal, I would suggest sending the following and then wait for the rejection.

Quote
Subject: Formal Challenge – Notice to Keeper [REFERENCE NUMBER]

Dear G24,

Re: Notice to Keeper [REFERENCE NUMBER]

I am writing to challenge the absurd parking charge you have issued, which cites "Term breached: Parked and left site Central Six Retail Park, Warwick Rd, Coventry, CV3 6TA.." The lack of specificity in your allegation (Parked and left site) is staggering. Who allegedly left the site? Was it the driver, a passenger, or perhaps someone entirely unrelated? You have presented no evidence of any breach, let alone identifying who supposedly breached this arbitrary term.

1. Lack of Evidence and Specificity:

The Notice to Keeper includes photos of a vehicle parked in a marked bay. Nothing more. No evidence of any person leaving the site. Your allegation is so vague and ill-defined that it would struggle to hold up under any scrutiny, let alone in court.

2. Contractual Terms Only Bind the Driver:

Even if you had managed to capture photos of someone leaving the site (and I'm still waiting to see any evidence), you fail to understand that passengers are not bound by your ridiculous terms. Only the driver enters into any so-called contract, and you cannot prove the driver left the site. If you think this baseless claim will survive any legal challenge, I suggest you reconsider your intellectual approach.

3. Undefined "Site" Boundaries:

It is a sign of intellectual malnourishment that you expect anyone to adhere to rules regarding a “site” when you have failed to define what the boundaries of the “site” are. The ambiguity in your signage would be comical if it weren’t an attempt to scam drivers with made-up breaches.

4. Your Operative's Inaction:

If your operative who took the photos witnessed someone "leaving the site," why did they not inform the driver that a breach was about to occur? The entire basis of this charge is not only malicious but stinks of an attempt to scam money. If you intend to claim this nonsense is enforceable, you clearly need to re-educate your staff on the basics of contractual law and fairness.

5. No Loss or Damage:

You’ve suffered no loss. The vehicle was parked in a marked bay, and there is no evidence that any contract was breached. This £100 charge is nothing more than a penalty dressed up to look legitimate, and it would be laughed out of court.

It is clear this charge is unenforceable. Should you reject this challenge and try to escalate this matter, be advised that I am more than prepared to expose the intellectual and legal deficiencies of this case in front of a judge. I expect this nonsense to be cancelled immediately.

Yours faithfully,
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #14 on: »
Even if they won't accept an appeal, I'd be minded to send one anyway, for the means of informing them you're not an easy target
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry