3. PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London  (Read 780 times)

0 Members and 145 Guests are viewing this topic.

PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« on: »
I am asking for advice on behalf of someone, and after reading other cases - I can't find a clear answer on how to proceed with this case.

They have been sent a postal parking charge and a notice to keeper follow up letter for both the 14th and 18th November (separate incidents). the keeper has not responded at all.


The keeper of the vehicle was "observed" not in a marked or numbered parking spot but on land supposedly belonging to "Blackhorse Mills, a block of flats in London. The parking land is well and clearly signposted in a few spots. PSGL issued the charge.

I wondered if any of the usual methods may work to clear the keeper of this charge. The registered keeper was not the driver in this case, and we would hope to pursue this course of action if you believed it would be the easiest way and perhaps PSGL don't follow proper protocol?



Here are some of my thoughts regarding actions we could maybe take based on what i have read in your other posts on the site:

- there is No observed from and until time on the notice. So just a static photo and a static observation time of the car, with no obvious repeat evidence. I know for a fact that the mgmt of this block of flats has a grace period of 20 minutes before you need to register the car number plate with the front desk.
The car park does also have one camera on the entrance of the car park. But no photo from the cameras was attached to the letter, only a photo from the warden who observed the car. No idea why they wouldn’t have attached photo evidence from the cameras on entrance and exit, but is there grounds for appeal here that they have not provided evidence that the driver was actually here longer than the building’s 20 minute grace period? Because the evidence in both letters both only observes the car for the one minute they took the photos?
 Or would they perhaps withhold these ANPR photos until i appeal this  point and then just bring out photos once we have appealed this point showing that the car was in there longer than the 20 minute grace period?



- Is there any grounds for appeal that I know the block of flats Blackhorse Mills operates a 20 minute grace period, but the signage in the car park (that they have photographed in the evidence) doesn’t mention that grace period exist at all and therefore the appropriate signage is not upheld?



- The notice to keeper letter says the car was “observed” at 8:08, a static time. obviously observed by a patrol person. Yet no sticker was placed on the windscreen to issue the parking charge. I know there is a camera near the entrance of the car park, but would this suggest that the camera didn’t pick up the vehicle at all and therefore it was only observed by the patrol warden? If this is the case, should the warden have followed correct protocol and placed a charge sticker on the windshield or is that not a technicality which will work?
Could it just be simply the case that they have ANPR camera evidence and have not uploaded it to the evidence site, and are saving it?





- The car park itself features numbered bays for tenants to pay to rent out. I have it on good authority that the building block Blackhorse Mills were only allowed to build a car park space big enough to house these numbered spots, yet there are a lot of “extra spots”/ extra parking space which appear available to use but are not numbered and are not supposedly allowed to be built there according to what the council originally allowed to be built. The keeper's car was pictured not in a numbered spot rented by a tenant and was instead pictured in these unregistered spots at the end of the road, that are not marked bays and supposedly cannot be monetised by Blackhorse mills... Does the keeper have grounds for appeal that this therefore means they cannot pursue this Charge? As the car was not parked in spots that the land owner has marked out or can charge for and cannot even define where the space started and ended?




- I guess my final point would be about NSGL. if the registered keeper was to not divulge the information of the driver at the time, is there a good chance that this company do not tend to follow the appropriate legislation and therefore the case could be dropped if driver information is not shared? Or are NSGL generally speaking in compliance with the correct protocol?


Please see the evidence attached to see if that helps. I really appreciate you guys running this group. thanks for the help!


(dropbox folder here containing the pictures of letters)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/cbqju8u7oszar1t19euj0/ADS7ySS7puAP8d2EfQ-qRoE?rlkey=pmsccg7j356pgfq3vjuiab8ua&st=n1f254ms&dl=0









[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #1 on: »
We would need to see the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). A postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) needs to comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA if they intend to hold the Keeper liable.

You would have to log onto the appeal website as though going to appeal to see what, if any, other evidential photos they hold. Do not appeal anything until you’ve come back here with the information requested.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #2 on: »
The documents in the Dropbox are almost all strangely cropped - we need to see the full documents, all pages, all info, just the VRM, name, address, and PCN reference numbers redacted.
Logged
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #3 on: »
The evidence shows the vehicle stationary for 36 seconds, a clear breach of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) Annex B1 which states that "Permit Areas must have a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes.

Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must:

"Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The NtK fails to comply with this requirement in the following ways:

No Period of Parking Specified. The NtK only specifies a single timestamp ("Time of Event: 08:08") and does not state a period of parking. Evidential photos showing the vehicle at 08:07:04, 08:07:20, and 08:07:40 are not part of the NtK and cannot establish a parking event.


Also, the lack of a defined period of parking renders the NtK invalid under PoFA. As the NtK fails to fully meet ALL the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, NSGL Parking cannot transfer liability for this charge from the driver to the Keeper.

The notification of the £100 charge is in minuscule font embedded within the wall of text in the sign. It is incapable of forming a contract. Under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, the notice must:

"Specify the amount of the parking charge and [...] adequately bring it to the attention of the driver."

The signage fails to meet the requirement of "adequate notice" under Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The £100 charge is hidden in minuscule text, making it unlikely that any driver would notice it when entering or parking. As a result, the operator has not fully complied with the requirements of PoFA, and therefore, they cannot hold the Keeper liable for this charge.

AS NSGL will likely reject any appeal, you need to get a POPLA code. Use the following generic appeal, only as the Keeper in order to get your code:

Quote
I am the Keeper of the vehicle referenced in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by your company. I dispute this charge and deny any liability or contractual agreement. I will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client, the landowner.

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with all the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically:

Failure to Specify the Period of Parking:

PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked AND the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Your NtK does not specify any period of parking, providing only a single timestamp ("Time of Event: 08:08") with no reference to how long the vehicle was allegedly parked.

While evidential photos show the vehicle stationary for 36 seconds, these photos are not part of the NtK and cannot substitute the explicit requirement under PoFA to state a period of parking in the NtK itself. A single timestamp does not meet the statutory requirement to specify a period, and therefore, the NtK is non-compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA.

Also, PoFA 2012, Paragraph 2(2), requires that adequate notice of the parking charge is given to drivers. In addition, the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) mandates that:

Charges must be clearly and prominently displayed on signage. Entrance signs must notify drivers that terms and conditions apply on private land, and the charges must be legible upon entry or parking.

The signage at this location fails to meet these standards:

The £100 charge is buried in dense, small text, making it difficult to read from a reasonable distance. There is no prominent display of the £100 charge on the signs, as required by the SCoP, leaving drivers unaware of the potential liability.

The failure to bring the charge to the driver’s attention means that adequate notice has not been given, invalidating any alleged contractual agreement.

Under Annex B1 of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP), a car park restricted to permit areas must provide a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes. This consideration period allows drivers sufficient time to:

• Enter the site,
• Locate the signage,
• Read and understand the terms, and
• Decide whether to stay or leave.

In this case, the observation period lasted only 36 seconds, far less than the mandated minimum of 5 minutes. This is insufficient for any driver to locate, read, and comprehend the terms and conditions. This lack of compliance with the SCoP invalidates the PCN and demonstrates that it was issued unfairly and prematurely.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NSGL has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The Keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.

Given the failure of your NtK to meet ALL the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012, the lack of adequate notice under the SCoP, and the absence of a proper consideration period, I suggest that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice immediately. If you decide not to cancel the PCN, I require the following:

1. A detailed explanation of how your NtK complies with all requirements of PoFA 2012, specifically Paragraph 9(2)(a) regarding the period of parking.
2. A full justification for issuing a charge based on photos showing a vehicle stationary for only 36 seconds without explicitly stating a parking period in the NtK.
3. Evidence of compliance with the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP), including signage and consideration period requirements.
4. A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising your company to issue PCNs at this site.

As NSGL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #4 on: »
Oh - you guys are fantastic !! Thankyou for your response.  :)

So, there are no ANPR photos or any further information online on their portal which would indicate they have the accurate information of the length of contravention, which is great.

But- you're essentially saying anyway that because they have sent the NTK and other letters without putting information of the period of time contravention (from and to), that this reason makes their whole process invalid under the legislation anyway?

If so, that is great news  :)



So, with this all in mind - would i still NEED to get a POPLA code and register the appeal there anyway? Or just use your drafted message as an appeal directly on NSGL's site, then go from there?

Thanks for this. super helpful
Logged
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #5 on: »
You can't get a POPLA code until your initial appeal has been rejected. NSGL are more likely than not going to reject the appeal anyway. In which case you will receive the POPLA code with the appeal rejection and you would then have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to lodge a POPLA appeal.

For now, you need to appeal to NSGL. Don't use their online portal. Simply email them. You can draft the appeal precisely as worded above. Only add a header with the PCN number, the Registered Keepers name and the VRM.

Ideally, create a PDF that you can attach to the email and put the PCN number in the email subject and in the body just say please find attached the appeal for PCN number XXXX.

The email address for sending appeals is appeals@nsglparking.co.uk. CC in yourself so that you have a proof of posting.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #6 on: »
Thanks a lot guys! I've sent that off and will see what they say. Many thanks!
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London