Author Topic: Private PCN St Michael's Court  (Read 1602 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2023, 10:17:42 am »
However, this just is not on the face of the PCN and hence I am arguing (or will argue if necessary) that this is inadmissible.
Indeed. To be clear, it's not that the extra information they've included on the appeal website is 'inadmissible' - if the matter goes to POPLA/court, they can include whatever information they so desire. Your argument would be that Schedule 4 of PoFA clearly states that it is the Notice to Keeper that must specify the location, if they want to hold the keeper liable, and that simply stating 'St Michaels Court' does not do this. The fact that further information is provided on their website is largely irrelevant. (After all, not all PCN recipients will visit the website, some will either pay or appeal entirely by post)

So they do maintain the discount pending their reply.
Good to know!

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2023, 11:58:09 am »
Quite understood. The PCN must be standalone under POFA (who on earth gave it that daft name? Whose freedoms are being protected?)

A reminder of the original PCN turned up in the post today just for good measure....

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2023, 12:12:43 pm »
(who on earth gave it that daft name? Whose freedoms are being protected?)
Bear in mind that the Protection of Freedoms Act is a large piece of legislation, and only one of its schedules relates to parking on private land. Other parts of the act regulate the storage/destruction of fingerprint records by the police and others, the regulation of CCTV use, the protection of property from disproportionate enforcement action, counter-terrorism powers, protecting vulnerable groups, disregarding convictions for outdated crimes like buggery etc., and other measures...

In relation to private parking, the Protection of Freedoms Act also made immobilising vehicles in private car parks an offence. If the case you are currently challenging had happened prior to the introduction of PoFA, the driver may have returned to the car to find a clamp attached, and a private company demanding a fee before they would release it.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2023, 12:14:33 pm by DWMB2 »

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2023, 04:54:25 pm »
Oh well, I suppose that's one advance. I imagine the quid pro quo to the PPC industry was "you can't clamp anyone but you can pursue the registered keeper if he refuses to identify the driver".

The Rookie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Warwickshire
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2023, 11:02:25 am »
Yes, that's really what I was getting at i.e. they can't adduce new evidence/info 
It's nothing to do with 'evidence'.

To be compliant the Notice to Keeper must specify the location.

Its obvious really, for the keeper to be able to contest they must know enough about the allegation to have a chance to do so, if they don't know the location, they can't check the signage etc.etc. to be able to contest it.
There are motorists who have been scammed and those who are yet to be scammed!

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2023, 07:52:46 pm »
Yes, exactly, I think we are all on the same page i.e. the PCN must bear all necessary info if they want the benefit of POFA thus if they have the address just as St Peter's Court it's no good later saying "well, the full address is on our website". This is what I meant by saying "they cannot later adduce further evidence or information". Anyway, now sitting back to see what they come back with......

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2023, 11:50:02 am »
Anyway, now sitting back to see what they come back with......
If you appealed online, keep an eye on your email spam folder.

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2023, 11:27:36 am »
I have now had a response from Parking Eye and it is rather ambivalent. They have not addressed the issue of the vague location at all. They have simply noted that I have not identified the driver and have given me 28 days in which to do so with a vague threat that they might reject the appeal if I don't play ball. To my mind, the vague location argument holds good whether it was me or the unidentified driver who was driving. Seems a bit of a holding tactic and I am minded just to ignore rather than respond and say "I am not identifying the driver but what about the question of vague location?".

Any thoughts?


DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2023, 12:10:41 pm »
This is a fairly common response. They're hoping you name the driver so that your argument that they have failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA by not specifying the location is no longer relevant (PoFA only matters in circumstances where they are seeking to recover the charge from the keeper).

Don't tell 'em.


Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2023, 12:23:52 pm »
So just ignore rather than tell them I am not telling them?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2023, 01:48:36 pm »
It's up to you, the end result should be the same

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Karma: +15/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2023, 03:21:27 pm »

Dear Sir,
PCN *********

I refer to the above dated 1 August and my appeal dated ****.

In the PCN you set out 4 options as follows:

To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
To name the driver;
To appeal;
To pay and appeal.

I elected to appeal which then gave you 35 days to serve your substantive response. You have not done so, instead you have sent a reply asking again for the driver's details and implying that if I did not comply this would (presumably adversely) affect your consideration of my appeal.

Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of Practice and ranks alongside your 4th 'option' of paying 'your' parking charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under the code.

As your response is extra-procedural you cannot rely upon it to relieve you of your obligation to respond within the 35-day period and I look forward to receiving this reply.

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2023, 11:10:56 am »
HCA

I rather like that. I know you of course from Pepipoo and your attention to detail is unsurpassed. Thanks for the heads-up on what is and is not permitted for private parking tickets, a subject on which I am far less well-informed than council PCNs. I will send an e-mail along those lines unless anyone else has a view.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2023, 12:03:03 pm »
If you're minded to respond to ParkingEye' fishing letter then I'd agree that Hcandersen's response would achieve the desired aim.

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #29 on: August 31, 2023, 12:35:57 pm »
I have beefed it up a little. Here is my intended reply:

Quote
I refer to the above PCN dated 1 August and my appeal dated 14 August.

In the PCN you set out 4 options as follows:

To pay the driver's alleged parking charge;
To name the driver;
To appeal;
To pay and appeal.

I elected to appeal which then gave you 35 days to serve your substantive response. You have not done so, instead you have sent a reply asking again for the driver's details and implying that if I did not comply my appeal "may well be rejected". This appears to tie your consideration of the merits of my appeal to my willingness to supply the driver's details, which I am under no legal obligation to provide. You are effectively fettering your discretion.

Such a response is not permitted under the BPA Code of Practice and ranks alongside your 4th 'option' of paying the parking charge and appealing which is similarly proscribed under the code.

As your response is extra-procedural you cannot rely upon it to relieve you of your obligation to respond within the 35-day period, addressing my substantive point regarding location. I look forward to receiving this reply.