Author Topic: Private PCN St Michael's Court  (Read 1603 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Karma: +15/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2023, 01:48:05 pm »

I have now submitted the appeal on-line along the lines of the draft above. The interesting thing is that when I get into the appeal pages the full address where the offence is alleged to have occurred is shown. 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.

It's not inadmissible, it's evidence..and in your favour.

The PCN itself must—

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

From what you are saying, the creditor knew full well the exact location and you have now been able to determine where this occured.

Great...because it means that you can now look at the site on GSV or in person to check on the signs without undermining a key element of your appeal which was that you were unaware where it occured.

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2023, 03:38:02 pm »
I have now had a sort of reminder PCN from Parking Eye but it is not headed Reminder, it is almost as though it were a new PCN but relating to the original "offence" i.e. the date of the offence is as before but the PCN bears a new date with a warning that it should be paid within 28 days of "the date of issue" which is now set out as 30 August. Similarly with the period for payment at a discount. The effect seems to be to just extend the periods - although I am not minded to pay anyway - but is this usual/legal?

Certainly you wouldn't find a LA issuing a second PCN for the same offence but with a new date of issue. I don't suppose it invalidates the original PCN does it? It is certainly muddying the waters though!

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2023, 03:56:40 pm »
Can we see the back of this new notice?

It's certainly unusual from ParkingEye, their reminder notices are usually clearly identified as such. Perhaps they used the wrong template.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Karma: +15/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2023, 04:15:39 pm »

IMO I would reply, with a straight bat of course.

PCNs **********/*********

Dear Sir,
On *** I appealed PCN ******** which you issued on *****.

On **** I received a response which neither accepted nor rejected my appeal.

On *** I wrote to you bringing this extra-procedural response to your attention.

You responded on **** by issuing a second PCN, no.********, in respect of the same alleged penalty charge. As the circumstances of these PCNs are identical and the addressee the same in each case, I trust you will now cancel both, in as much as the second has any validity, and draw a line under this episode.

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2023, 08:44:58 pm »
Here's the back of the new notice. I had looked at it quickly and assumed it was the same rubric as in the first but on looking more carefully there is an additional para which I have marked with asterisks. This is rather a strange para as (to paraphrase) it says they (PE) have written to the RK (i.e. me) and he (me) has informed them that you (again me, as the addressee of the letter) was responsible for the "parking event". But they then go on to say that they don't know the contact details for the driver and could I please inform them who it was if it wasn't me. They then omit the para headed Protection of Freedoms Act that appeared in the original PCN.

So thoroughly convoluted and confusing  :-\

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2023, 10:32:34 pm »
Should I write to Parking Eye again to point out the incoherence of this along the lines of HCA's draft?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2023, 10:42:32 pm »
I think I'd me minded to, yes. Although if you're making use of HCAndersen's wording, change 'penalty charge' to 'parking charge'.

To hopefully avoid any further confusion, you may wish to attach a copy of your initial appeal alongside this, and make clear in the response that you are doing so.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2023, 10:44:31 pm by DWMB2 »

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2023, 12:45:07 pm »
Here is my suggested letter to PE drawing on HCA's draft but expanding it a bit:

Quote
Dear Sir,

On 14 August I appealed PCN 226902/075498 which you issued on 1 August.

On 30 August I received a response which neither accepted nor rejected my appeal.

On 1 September I wrote to you bringing this extra-procedural response to your attention.

You responded by post in a letter received by me on 4 September by issuing a second PCN, bearing the same number as the original but dated 30 August in respect of the same alleged penalty charge, asking for a penalty to be paid within 28 days of the [new] issue date.

On the back of the “new” PCN is a paragraph that says as follows:

“We originally wrote to the registered keeper [that is me] of the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of the parking event and they [me again] have informed us that you [me again] were responsible for this vehicle at the time of the parking event [no I have not]…..if you were not the driver at the time [I have already told you I was not] you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver [I am under no legal obligation to do this].

You have now sent me two separate PCNs on different dates of issue for the same “offence” and a letter which is misinformed and thoroughly confusing.
As the circumstances of these PCNs are identical and the addressee the same in each case, I trust you will now cancel both, given that the second has no validity, and that you have failed to supply a comprehensive answer to the appeal against the first.

Given that PE had 35 days to respond to my appeal of 14 August - which I contend they have not done in a substantive form - this takes us to 18 September by my reckoning. Should I send the above letter now to "mark their card" and then assuming nothing has arrived by 18 September another to say "you are out of time"? I am mindful that my assertion above "you have failed to supply a comprehensive answer" begs the question "by when"?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #38 on: September 09, 2023, 01:57:18 pm »
I think I'd me minded to, yes. Although if you're making use of HCAndersen's wording, change 'penalty charge' to 'parking charge'.
Note the above. A minor difference, but important when you're trying to sound like you know your stuff.

I wouldn't say 'you're out of time'. But by all means remind them of the deadlines in the Code of Practice (noting that them failing to comply by it is poor practice, but doesn't necessarily prevent them trying to take things further).


Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #39 on: September 09, 2023, 03:06:40 pm »
Fair point about parking charge v parking penalty, you did mention that before. So are you suggesting I remind them of the 35 day deadline now, before it's expired? From what you say, this is a Code of Practice and as such advisory rather than binding? Tactically it might make sense to wait until we are closer to the expiry of that period?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2023, 05:37:42 pm »
The Code of Practice is binding insofar as they agree to comply with it, and if they do not you could complain to the BPA. The Code of Practice is just that, not the law (although the Supreme Court did describe it as "in practice binding" in the Beavis case).

My point was more that them not complying with the code would be poor practice (and something you could point out), but wouldn't immediately invalidate the charge or prevent them taking further action.

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2023, 09:53:41 pm »
Well, no great surprise, Parking Eye have rejected my appeal. Not that they considered the fundamental point raised i.e. imprecise location nor the secondary point inasmuch as they sent a second PCN with a different date but referring to the same "offence". No they came out with this cracker:

Quote
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of
sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These
terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.

Irrelevant that I had never questioned the terms and conditions nor whether they were properly displayed nor whether I had breached them or not. I simply pointed to the fact that they had not given me the address for St Michael's Court so they "had not specified the relevant land" as required by the legislation. That point has been completely ignored. They have also completely ignored the incoherent para on the back of the second purported PCN in which they alleged that I as RK had identified myself as the driver (which I hadn't) and if I wasn't the driver (with my driver hat on) could I please identify who was the driver (which I had already said I was not going to do).

So you will see from the letter attached that they have given me all the blurb for appealing to POPLA but NOT the 10 digit number they need to send with their letter of rejection. I assume this is deliberate to try and snooker an appeal to POPLA. I have never appealed to POPLA before. I assume it is fairly straightforward - do they do telephone hearings or do you just get a written verdict?

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2023, 10:16:32 pm »
they have given me all the blurb for appealing to POPLA but NOT the 10 digit number they need to send with their letter of rejection.
They have, it's immediately above 'Dear Sir/Madam'.

And yes, they seldom address the specificities of appeals, far cheaper to send out a boilerplate.

The process of appealing to POPLA is fairly straightforward, and can be done entirely online via their website. There are no telephone or in-person hearings, it's all done 'on the papers'. The general advice with POPLA appeals is to be more thorough than your initial appeal to the parking company, as the POPLA assessor does not have the benefit of any prior knowledge of the case, and the more thorough you are, the less room for misinterpretation there is.

It may help to look at other POPLA appeals to get a feel for how they are constructed - the MSE Forum has a decent introduction guide here (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350600/#Comment_64350600) - and a search of that forum and the PePiPoo should yield some good recent examples. Ideally, find a couple that have argued similar points to you (I provided a link to a similar case early on in the thread).

Chaseman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2023, 06:17:17 pm »
Here is my draft appeal to POPLA. Any comments gratefully received.

Quote
I received a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) to Keeper ref 226902/075498 dated 1 August 2023 for vehicle VRM LF64SFY of which I am the registered keeper, alleging a parking “offence” on 27 July. I was not the driver of the car on the date in question.

This Notice 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 location of the relevant land as required by section 9 (2)(a) of the Act. It is not possible to determine the location of the alleged breach of their conditions because the PCN stated the address as just "St Michaels Court". A quick check on Google Maps finds at least nine St Michaels Courts in England including Aylsham, Amersham, two addresses in London, South Shields, Gloucester, Derby, Litchfield and Weybridge. Parking Eye therefore cannot 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 and I have not done so.
 
Even if the address is more specifically noted in another medium or at a later date, the PCN needs to specify the location of the relevant land and it does not. I appealed to Parking Eye on these grounds on 14 August.

On 30 August I received a response which neither accepted nor rejected my appeal.

The PCN set out four 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 Parking Eye 35 days to serve their substantive response. The 30 August response asked again for the driver's details and implied that if I did not comply my appeal "may well be rejected". This appeared to tie their 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. They were effectively fettering their discretion.

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

On 1 September I wrote to Parking Eye bringing this extra-procedural response to their attention.

They responded by post in a letter received by me on 4 September by issuing a second PCN, bearing the same number as the original but dated 30 August in respect of the same alleged parking charge, asking for a penalty to be paid within 28 days of the [new] issue date.
 
On the back of the “new” PCN is a paragraph that says as follows:

“We originally wrote to the registered keeper [that is me] of the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of the parking event and they [me again] have informed us that you [me again] were responsible for this vehicle at the time of the parking event [which I did not]…..if you were not the driver at the time [I had already told them I was not] you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver [I am under no legal obligation to do this]”.

They had thus sent me two separate PCNs on different dates of issue for the same “offence” and a letter which is misinformed and thoroughly confusing.

Finally on 16 September Parking Eye sent a letter rejecting my appeal. The reason given for the rejection was as follows:

“We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.”

This signally fails to address the fundamental point of my appeal which is that the PCN does not identify the location of the car park where the “offence” is alleged to have taken place. Simply telling me it was “St Michael’s Court” does not give me sufficient detail to allow me to locate the car park in question and hence any discussion of the terms and conditions that were or were not displayed and were or were not breached is simply irrelevant. I made no reference in my appeal to such terms and conditions. Thus I contend that there is a defect in the original PCN which renders it non-compliant with section 9(2)(a) of POFA 2012 and as such liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper. No subsequent further specification of the address (of which there has been none) can remedy this defect.

As a secondary point of appeal I note Parking Eye’s issue of a second PCN dated 30 August but alleging the same offence date of 27 July, which bore an incoherent paragraph on the back (as set out above) claiming I had done or said things as the registered keeper that patently I had not. Taken together with the implied threat that if I did not identify the driver my appeal “may well be rejected” this is an example of outrageous bad faith that should call for the PCN to be dismissed immediately.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2023, 09:35:10 pm »
I think this draft would benefit from more structure, and a change of focus. Your main point of argument is (or should be), the PoFA fail, but currently around 75% of your draft focuses on a timeline of who sent what when, and the issue of the 2nd PCN, which potentially acts more as a distraction than a help in its current form.

By all means mention the debacle of them sending 2 PCNs, and the request for driver's details, as examples of their poor practice, but in my opinion your appeal would be far stronger if it focuses on the key issue of PoFA compliance. After all, this is a reason why no money is owed by you as the keeper. Them sending two PCNs on the face of it, isn't.

Have you looked at the examples on the MSE post I linked to? They often include a clear structure that guides the assessor through the points. I'd recommend setting it out your reasons in a similar structure, such as:
  • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been liable for the charge- I'd be minded to set this point out clearly before your point about PoFA. After all, their lack of compliance with PoFA is only relevant if it has not been established who was driving, so make this point clearly, and leave the assessor in no doubt that you are appealing as keeper, and that they therefore need to consider your liability as the keeper.
  • Failure to comply with PoFA - Make this as thorough as you can. Explain what they need to do to comply, and how what they have done is insufficient. To do this, make it clear why simply saying "St Michael's Court" does not specify where the incident took place, ideally providing examples of the fact that it could refer to multiple locations (perhaps include a list of car parks you identified that bear such a name, and how their vague location therefore does not specify where the incident occurred).
  • If you wish, you can then mention the issues around them issuing a second PCN etc., as examples of their poor practice, and failure to consider the substantive points raised in your appeal
  • Landowner Authority - this is what you might describe as a 'speculative' appeal point, so it's your call whether to include it. The MSE link I provided in a previous post sets out this appeal point. It basically puts ParkingEye to proof that they have a valid contract to manage parking on the site in question. If they don't produce one, result.
  • Finish with a brief summary explaining that for the various reasons outlined above, your appeal should be upheld and the charge should be cancelled.

To make the appeal more readable, and easier to follow, I'd recommend using headings and numbering your appeal points. Clear grounds of appeal in headings, with the detailed explanations underneath.