-
A few days ago, I received a parking charge fraudulently from One Parking Solution even though I was fully compliant with both a visitors permit allowing me to park and a valid blue badge to park in the disabled bay. The parking site is private land just off St Martins Place and provides parking spaces for residents of the three blocks of Council flats with Napier House being the middle one (see attached map). The parking area land is owned by St Martin's church with St Wilfrid and St Alban in Lewes Rd, Brighton, BN2 3HL.
The PCN states contravention reason as:
Vehicle not pre-authorised (No E-permit)
“Notice of the charge having been clearly displayed on the signs on site, the period of parking to which this charge relates, is the period immediately preceding the time of issue above”
This statement is false (please see the photo attached of one of the few signs on site) the sign reads as follows: -
Parking is permitted for:
· Vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid permit in front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay
and/or
· Pre-authorised vehicles parked fully within their allocated parking space
Vehicles parked within a marked disabled bay must fully and clearly display a valid disabled badge in addition to the above.
I have tried to call them to no avail. I have emailed a complaint and a general enquiry no response yet. I have also appealed the charge on their website.
Clearly looking around online its obvious what type of business they are and I'm gearing up for the long haul fighting their thugish behavior. Knowledge is king so your help is very welcome
-
-
Welcome to FTLA.
Please show us the PCN, the exact wording of your appeal, and of your complaint. -
-
Hi thanks for getting back to me. This is the PCN placed on my car windscreen. The word document pages are what I copied and pasted into the online appeal form.
[/img]
-
-
Try again to attach the PCN
[/img] 
-
-
Oh dear. What pity you didn't come here first before making that self incriminating appeal.
In the email, the author clearly identifies themself as the driver by using first-person admissions of driving/parking activity, e.g.:“I have a valid visitors permit and it was on display.”
“I was parked in a disabled bay and had a valid blue badge showing in the front windscreen.”
Those statements amount to an explicit admission of being the driver on the material dates. As a result, the operator can proceed on the basis of driver liability and arguments about PoFA keeper liability would no longer assist.
For future reference, only ever refer to the driver in the third person.
OPS are a horrible, vexatious firm of ex-clampers that operate in the Brighton area. Had you not identified the driver (no legal obligation on the Keeper to do so), you would have had a very easy win.
Also, you should never respond to a Notice to Driver (NtD) windscreen ticket until the very last day (day 27 after the date of the alleged contravention) as this usually forces them to respond (reject) the appeal without issuing a valid Notice to Keeper (NtK) thus breaching PoFA para 8.
However, you are where you are. You have almost no hope with an IAS appeal but you would almost certainly win if this ever proceeded to a court claim. However, that process will take many months (9-12+) before it concludes.
-
-
Thanks for your help with this. Live and learn as they say I shall just have to wait this out till we end in court
-
-
The odds of it actually getting as far as a hearing are very slim. They will issue a claim in the hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will be intimidated into paying up out of ignorance and fear.
-