PCM Parking Charge Notice

[des8]

I would keep the appeal to two points

1) there was not enough time allowed for driver to park, alight from vehicle, read the signs and visit the flat to which he was delivering goods, obtain the permit and return to vehicle to display said permit.
Point out that IPC Code of Practice sec 13.1 states "Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land"
This must include time to obtain & display the requisite permit.
Does the vehicle include a tracking device which records where and when the vehicle was? This would help

2)The non compliance of the NTK in not stating the period of parking as required by POFA2012 sch4 sec 9 (2) (e) means that liability for the unpaid charge cannot be transferred from driver to registered keeper

Do not identify the driver, and at this stage don't mention the forbidding nature of the signage
.

[bobosh13]

Not surprised as accepting an appeal does not swell their coffers.
Also note they do not comment on the non compliance of the NTK with POFA 2012 sch4 Sec 9 (2) (e) but wrongly assert "the conditions of the Act have been satisfied".

You have the choice of paying up, or appealing to the non independent appeals panel (IAS) who will almost certainly find in favour of the parking company.

You then have the choice of paying up, or awaiting a barrage of letters from debt collectors and then a court claim.

IMO you have good arguments which should enable you to win if it ever gets to court (but County court can be a bit of a lottery.
Sometimes these companies take it to the wire and discontinue the claim at the last minute

I would not pay them, but it is entirely your choice.

Thanks

[bobosh13]

I would keep the appeal to two points

1) there was not enough time allowed for driver to park, alight from vehicle, read the signs and visit the flat to which he was delivering goods, obtain the permit and return to vehicle to display said permit.
Point out that IPC Code of Practice sec 13.1 states "Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land"
This must include time to obtain & display the requisite permit.
Does the vehicle include a tracking device which records where and when the vehicle was? This would help

2)The non compliance of the NTK in not stating the period of parking as required by POFA2012 sch4 sec 9 (2) (e) means that liability for the unpaid charge cannot be transferred from driver to registered keeper

Do not identify the driver, and at this stage don't mention the forbidding nature of the signage
.

Hi DES8,

I have submitted the appeal to IAS and PCM have responded to that appeal by uploading a document.

IAS say I need to provide a response if I would like to. Any idea what I could do?

[des8]

So just point out the lack of proof about the identity of the driver means the claimant must rely on POFA 2012 to transfer liability for the payment of any alleged unpaid charges from the driver to the registered keeper.
Point out to do that they MUST comply with certain conditions, one of which (pofa2012 Sch 4 sec9 (2) (a)) requires the NTK to specify the period of parking.
Add that the NTK issued does not specify a period (to state it is for the period immediately preceding the time of issue of the notice is insufficient) and so liability for any unpaid charges cannot be transferred to the registered keeper


IAS will still find in favour of the parking company

[bobosh13]

So just point out the lack of proof about the identity of the driver means the claimant must rely on POFA 2012 to transfer liability for the payment of any alleged unpaid charges from the driver to the registered keeper.
Point out to do that they MUST comply with certain conditions, one of which (pofa2012 Sch 4 sec9 (2) (a)) requires the NTK to specify the period of parking.
Add that the NTK issued does not specify a period (to state it is for the period immediately preceding the time of issue of the notice is insufficient) and so liability for any unpaid charges cannot be transferred to the registered keeper


IAS will still find in favour of the parking company

Oh, that's a bummer.

So it it would need to go to court?

[des8]

they will pursue the money, possibly even to court though they sometimes either do not pay the hearing fee or just don't turn up!

[bobosh13]

they will pursue the money, possibly even to court though they sometimes either do not pay the hearing fee or just don't turn up!

Hi DES8, as you predicted, IAS has sided with PCM and now I am getting letters to pay the full amount.

I guess my next steps are to ignore these letters and wait for the court date and then turn up at court?

Is it ok if I ask you what I would need to do when I go to the actual court (if it happens)?

Thanks.

[des8]

I would tend to ignore the letters until one arrives headed "letter of claim" or similar.

When that letter, or a court claim arrives, by all means post it up and we can set out your options

[bobosh13]

I would tend to ignore the letters until one arrives headed "letter of claim" or similar.

When that letter, or a court claim arrives, by all means post it up and we can set out your options

Thank you very much.