Free Traffic Legal Advice

Classic "double dip". Which PPC? Is the NtK PoFA compliant? If you're not sure, show an image of the front and back of the NtK, suitably redacted but leaving all dates and times showing.

Until we know whether the NtK is PoFA complaint, do not reveal the identity of the driver. No "...I parked" or "...I drove". You have been contacted as the keeper. They have no idea who the driver is and if the NtK is not PoFA compliant, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

You must complain (not appeal) to the PPC and instruct them, in order to avoid a GDPR claim, they must find the "orphan images" (use that term) of the vehicle leaving after the first drop off and entering before the second pick-up. Inform them that you can evidence the vehicle being elsewhere at other times that day in between the first entry and the second exit.

Tell them to cancel the PCN and to delete all data they hold on you and your vehicle. By having failed to do a manual check of all ANPR images, they had no reasonable cause to request your data from the DVLA and you should report them. Having no reasonable cause, they have breached the KADOE rules and had no right to request your DVLA data.

The Government's Private Parking Code of Practice stipulates that "images generated by ANPR or CCTV must be subject to manual quality control checks, including the accuracy of the time-stamp and the risk of keying errors".  It then goes on further to add, "The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as 'double dipping', where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant."

Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification.  Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check.

Nothing showing. Maybe try https://imgbb.com

The NtK fails the requirements of PoFA in that there is no "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) is missing from that NtK.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

However, both UKCPM and their incestuous IAS will ignore this fact. By all means try an appeal with UKCPM but only appeal as the keeper. Point out that you are appealing as the keeper and include the point about "double dip" and "orphan images" and the spiel in my earlier post.

There are 4 plans you need to follow:

Plan A which is a complaint to the College and ask them to get their agent, UKCPM, to cancel the PCN due to the "double dip" which you are able to evidence.

Plan B is the initial appeal to UKCPM as explained above.

Plan C is an appeal to the IAS if Plan B is rejected. An exercise in futility.

Between Plans C and D, you have to weather a storm of debt collector letters which can all be ignored as they are just trying to scare you into paying up. They have no skin in the game as they are a third part to the contract you have allegedly breached with UKCPM.

Plan D is a claim hearing where a truly independent arbiter, a judge, will decide whether you owe a debt to UKCPM. They usually don't want to go that far but they will if they think you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and are likely to capitulate and pay up when you receive a claim form from the CNBC.

For now, try Plan A and then Plan B (but don't miss the deadline for the Plan B appeal). Show us what you intend to send before you send it.

So I called crawley collage, on the off chance and they was able to advice me, I emailed a copy of the PCN, with what I had said above. They still advised plan b, and did say, it happens often and they have said to the pcn company. Yet they don't care.

You have been advised to use wording about “double dip” and “orphan images”. It is imperative that you use that language as you are dealing with regulatory and contractual issues. Don’t think for a moment that you are dealing with reasonable people with a customer service ethos.

These unregulated private parking companies are simply the evolution of the clamper thugs of old. They are interested in one thing only... your hard earned money. If you exhibit any tendency to not know this, they will mark you as a “mug” and try and squeeze you. You are dealing with scammers and don’t ever forget that.

This is not an “appeal”. This is a complaint to the PPC that they have breached KADOE rules and your GDPR because there has been no human intervention/review of the ANPR images to find the “orphan images” that would show there has been no breach of any terms. By failing to search for “orphan images” they have breached their own ATA code of practice, breached KADOE because had they followed procedure, they would have found the “orphan images” and so had no “reasonable cause” to request your data from the DVLA. By requesting your personal data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, they have breached your GDPR.

You will have every right to sue them for the GDPR breach. Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.

The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales.  In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £300 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".

Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court").  Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £300 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved.  Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.

Get something submitted today. As it stands, you are probably out of time because you had 21 days beginning on the day after the date on which the 'notice was given'. 'Given' is neither defined nor expressed in the PCN - which is hardly helpful to you- but is the 'second day after posting'.

But 29th was Good Friday, therefore unless Saturday counts as a posting day the earliest it was posted was Tues. 2 April(Monday being Easter Bank Holiday) and therefore it was 'given' on 4th and the day after was 5th and therefore 21 days beginning on the day after the notice was given would have been 25th, yesterday.

You can but try.