ParkingEye v Bowen

[bananas22]

Hope that's legible

[bananas22]

If I click on it it does come up big. I have highlighted the bit in yellow - a) because it doesn't clearly identify the period of parking and b) because it doesn't make sense unless a NTD was issued but an NTD was not issued. The modus operandi is someone comes in at a certain time of day, runs around the car park with a smart phone photographing 'offending' vehicles, disappears to other duties, then returns after 3 hours and does the same again before departing. One day recently I kept a detailed record - not a single car 'clocked' was returned to. This is consistent with more casual observations I have made over at least a year.

[bananas22]

And for the record I have in my possession a valid permit for the day - whether the permit is obscured by the reflections in the windscreen or fell off the dash is impossible to say

[bananas22]

Needless to say I did send a copy of the permit to the company to no avail. And obviously if an NTD had been presented to anyone with the car on the day that person would have produced the permit. For the period this company has been managing the car park I have NEVER seen an NTD issued.

[charitynjw]

Sorry, I don't do PMs.
But you can post up a redacted copy of the NtK. Just leave all times & dates visible.
Front & reverse sides.
That way, you have the benefit of other opinions/posters far more clever than me,

####

[bananas22]

Apologies again - interesting I hadn't noticed a time on the payment bit

[charitynjw]

Apologies again - interesting I hadn't noticed a time on the payment bit

What response, if any, was made to your appeal?

[charitynjw]

And for the record I have in my possession a valid permit for the day - whether the permit is obscured by the reflections in the windscreen or fell off the dash is impossible to say

Could you clarify the reason for the permit?

Also answer post #37.

[bananas22]

What response, if any, was made to your appeal?

Here it is

[bananas22]

Could you clarify the reason for the permit?

Also answer post #37.

It is a pay and display car park on land owned by a community arts centre which hosts various events, the 2 people with the car were engaged in one such event and as such were entitled to a permit issued by the arts centre valid for the whole of that day.

[charitynjw]

If I click on it it does come up big. I have highlighted the bit in yellow - a) because it doesn't clearly identify the period of parking and b) because it doesn't make sense unless a NTD was issued but an NTD was not issued. The modus operandi is someone comes in at a certain time of day, runs around the car park with a smart phone photographing 'offending' vehicles, disappears to other duties, then returns after 3 hours and does the same again before departing. One day recently I kept a detailed record - not a single car 'clocked' was returned to. This is consistent with more casual observations I have made over at least a year.

How so?

[bananas22]

How so?

It refers to an NTD not being put on the car 'at the Time of issue' - thus something was issued - what was it if not an NTD ? It goes on to refer to the issue 'of that Notice' - again - what was that Notice if not an NTD ? An NTK couldn't have been issued at that point and I know of no other type of Notice.

[charitynjw]

It refers to an NTD not being put on the car 'at the Time of issue' - thus something was issued - what was it if not an NTD ? It goes on to refer to the issue 'of that Notice' - again - what was that Notice if not an NTD ? An NTK couldn't have been issued at that point and I know of no other type of Notice.

A quick read of s6 of Sch 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 should illuminate & highlight your misconception.

[bananas22]

A quick read of s6 of Sch 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 should illuminate & highlight your misconception.

I am afraid I need something more specific because I can see nothing in the above which points to any misconception in anything I have posted

[charitynjw]

I am afraid I need something more specific because I can see nothing in the above which points to any misconception in anything I have posted

6(1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.


No ambiguity there, imho.