Author Topic: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)  (Read 429 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« on: April 28, 2024, 05:41:13 pm »
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have received a PCN from I Park alleging that an unpaid parking charge is due.
I have appealed through their web site:
The driver had simply stopped to be able to make a phone call to get directions to their final destination. While they stepped out of the vehicle to check signage and to determine their location for the purposes of conveying that to the other party, they never left the car park during the phone call, and exited the car park as soon as they had finished that phone call.
They have responded:
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered and our records show that the PCN was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.
Their standard response letter goes on:
Prior to leaving the vehicle it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure the 'pay and display' ticket is clearly on display and not dislodged or that the vehicle has been successfully recorded on the electronic system.
(my emphasis)


In hindsight, I can see that I could have worded my response better, noting that the driver had stopped to check signage, and having seen the signage they decided not to park there, which then led them to make the phone call. 
I Park have now told me that I can either pay the £60 or appeal through IAS (Independent Appeals Service).
I contend that the driver did not actually leave the vehicle, as they were no more than a few metres from it at all times, checking signage and location, so my lay reading is that no parking charge is due.
What further information would you need in order to be able to guide me as to my best next action?

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • Karma: +66/-1
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2024, 05:58:44 pm »
We could do with seeing the whole parking charge notice, with only personal details, PCN number and the vehicle VRM redacted, rather than the small section uploaded.

How long was the vehicle there? One issue you may face is your version of events - drivers are allowed a 'consideration period' to review the terms and conditions of parking and decide whether to accept them and park, or reject them and leave - however the version of events put forward in your appeal suggests that having reviewed the signage, they chose to remain there to complete a phone call before leaving. How long the vehicle was there might be useful.

The IAS is a bit of a kangaroo court who seem to rarely accept appeals, whether or not you appeal to them is your choice. If you are determined to fight the matter, it'll be a case of waiting to see if they decide to take it to court.
Away 10/01/25 - 18/01/25 - I will have limited forum access

Posting for the first time? READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide | House Rules

Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2024, 09:05:02 pm »
The phone call lasted 2:57 - just long enough to get directions to where they were supposed to have been going.
From entry to exit, the car was in the car park for around 6 minutes, including that call. Photographs in their reply to the appeal all show timestamps within a 6 minute window. The PCN only gives a single time, not a range or duration.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Karma: +46/-31
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2024, 08:13:22 am »
I contend that the driver did not actually leave the vehicle,

Rather undermines any defence IMO because they ARE required to leave and look for and consider the Ts and Cs of parking which, unless known by them prior to this event, could only be determined by reading the Ts and Cs signs. Simply sitting in a car would not IMO entitle the keeper to rely upon the defence of minimum 'consideration' period.

I therefore wouldn't contend this.

Pl reinstate the dates and times in the PCN and the photo of the car so we can see whether a period of parking is stated in the notice and also whether the photo simply shows the car parked. Also, post their reply letter, do not cut and paste.

Remember, it's the creditor's burden to prove the breach IN THE PCN so until you've reinstated the redacted info in the PCN and we've been able to decide what defence, if any, could be available and a way forward the less you write the better IMO. And pl post all other photos and their so-called evidence, don't describe.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2024, 08:15:37 am by H C Andersen »

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3159
  • Karma: +135/-4
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2024, 06:34:19 pm »
I am already dealing with a claim from I Park Services at this location. Interestingly, the NtK sent for that one was actually labelled "Non-PoFA". Not that that has prevented them trying to claim keeper liability in their reminders.



Aside from that, the signage at this location is abysmal and does not conform to the requirements of their ATA, the IPC. However, as their NtK is PoFA compliant, there iso not much you can do except wait for the inevitable debt collection correspondence from DCBL and eventually, an LoC from DCB Legal and then a claim.

In the case I'm handling at the moment, after submitting the standard, robust defence, we are currently waiting for the inevitable discontinuation notice.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2024, 08:48:13 pm »
PCN

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2024, 08:49:37 pm »
Their reply. It was sent as a PDF, and I have neither the tools nor the skills to redact details from a PDF and then attach it.

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2024, 08:50:51 pm »
Pictures (1-4 of 7) embedded in the reply PDF.

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2024, 08:51:25 pm »
Pictures (5-7 of 7) embedded in the reply PDF.

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2024, 08:54:05 pm »
I contend that the driver did not actually leave the vehicle,

Rather undermines any defence IMO because they ARE required to leave and look for and consider the Ts and Cs of parking which, unless known by them prior to this event, could only be determined by reading the Ts and Cs signs. Simply sitting in a car would not IMO entitle the keeper to rely upon the defence of minimum 'consideration' period.

I therefore wouldn't contend this.
You misunderstand what I'm saying

I'm saying that they cannot claim that the driver must pay before leaving the vehicle and then be able to claim that simply stepping out of the vehicle constitutes "leaving" it, because of what you say. Therefore, I claim that the driver did not "leave the vehicle" despite stepping out of it, as they were in the immediate vicinity of it, within the car park, checking signage etc.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3159
  • Karma: +135/-4
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2024, 09:51:21 pm »
This will end up as a claim issued by DCB Legal and can be easily defended. They will discontinue before any hearing.

My advice, ignore them until you receive a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal. Ignore all debt collector letters from I Park Services and DCB Ltd.

Let us know when you get your LoC and a suitable response can be provided. It really is not worth the effort dealing with these cowboys.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • Karma: +66/-1
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2024, 10:04:19 pm »
In terms of the contravention itself, the length of time the driver was there, and what they did during that time, would be the main points of consideration. That they weren't there for long is in their favour. That they stayed to make a phone call before leaving potentially isn't.

As b789 notes, keep an eye out for any correspondence that is marked Letter Before Claim or similar, as this needs attention. Debt collectors in the meantime do not.
Away 10/01/25 - 18/01/25 - I will have limited forum access

Posting for the first time? READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide | House Rules

Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3159
  • Karma: +135/-4
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2024, 10:05:48 pm »
As an aside, a claim with a similar NtK that did not specify a "period of parking" was dismissed at court because it does not specify a "period of parking". It should state parking from ....  to .... not just parked at .... time as it is in theNtK below. The judge stated that the claim was dismissed because the NtK was not compliant with  PoFA 9 (2)(a). She said it only had an "incident time" and did not mentioned how long vehicle was parked there.



PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b) apply:

9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

DohRay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2024, 10:43:24 pm »
In terms of the contravention itself, the length of time the driver was there, and what they did during that time, would be the main points of consideration. That they weren't there for long is in their favour. That they stayed to make a phone call before leaving potentially isn't.

As b789 notes, keep an eye out for any correspondence that is marked Letter Before Claim or similar, as this needs attention. Debt collectors in the meantime do not.
This will end up as a claim issued by DCB Legal and can be easily defended. They will discontinue before any hearing.

My advice, ignore them until you receive a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal. Ignore all debt collector letters from I Park Services and DCB Ltd.

Let us know when you get your LoC and a suitable response can be provided. It really is not worth the effort dealing with these cowboys.
Thank you, that gives me clear direction on how to go forward.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • Karma: +66/-1
    • View Profile
Re: PCN from I Park, Mere Green (Sutton Coldfield)
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2024, 11:50:23 pm »
Quote
As an aside, a claim with a similar NtK that did not specify a "period of parking" was dismissed at court because it does not specify a "period of parking"
I wonder if that case was strengthened by the fact that the charge was issued for an alleged overstay, which rather necessitates a start and end time to demonstrate.
Away 10/01/25 - 18/01/25 - I will have limited forum access

Posting for the first time? READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide | House Rules

Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice