Bank Parking ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - wrong reg - Appeal failed - Belvedere Street Car Park, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 1JJ

[lookinforinfo]

Good news Laura. The PCN does not comply with the Act which means that Bank cannot transfer the alleged debt to you the keeper  and demand the keeper pays it as would have happened if the PCN was compliant.

The situation now is that they do not know who was driving so they cannot pursue the driver and you cannot be pursued as Bank has messed up by failing to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

So carry on with your life as they can do absolutely nothing to reclaim their alleged debt. You don't owe and they do not know who the driver is nor where they live. Completely relax and ignore all the letters from debt collectors-they can do nothing to get you to pay. And tell your son to forget about paying too-he doesn't have to either.

 

There are two fails by Bank on your PCN.

The first one is the period of parking. They have used the time your car entered and left the park from their camera. But that is not the same as the parking period since they have included the time taken to find a parking spot and leaving the car park  as if the car was parked when it obviously could not have been parked as it was being driven.

 

The second reason is that the Act specifies that some of the wording MUST be the same as in the Act-and it doesn't.

Schedule 4 section 9 [2][f] says "

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

If you look at your PCN  the bit in brackets in yours is missing. It may be nit picking but that is the Law. In any event they didn't comply with the Act since they got the parking period wrong.

[lookinforinfo]

The IAS confirmed that your grandson paid for two cars on the day. So he must have paid by a bank card. All he has to do is check. So you will have proof of payment as confirmed by the IAS. Oh the irony....

[lookinforinfo]

 

Laura please relax.

The PCN is not compliant with the Act that applies to car parks and as your son is the registered and was not the driver whatever Bank Parking may say, your son will not have to pay their charge. And that applies even if the case goes to Court. Your son is not liable.

 

This is the second time I have said this so please do not worry and let your son know that he is not involved.

 

I haven't been able to read the letter you received from DCBL as it is too blurred but I assume it is the usual DCBL bluster and threats which can be ignored since their understanding of the Protection of Freedoms Act is on a level of a typical six year old in Primary school. and that is being generous to them.

 

I also read the letter from bank management that said  "You stated within your reply you were not the driver of the vehicle bit in fact the Registered Keeper. Please see the below statement which was on your Notice To Keeper (NTK). A copy is enclosed for your ease of reference. "

That appeared to suggest that you made another statement where it may have been said that your son was the driver. Could you please post that up.

When you contact Bank are you doing so as if you are writing as your son or are you writing as his Mother?

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for your reply Laura.

Did your grandson check out his bank statement for the car park payment.

[lookinforinfo]

Having paid by card would have been the icing on the cake. Nevertheless your son is not liable to pay the charge. Please tell him that and try to relax.

 

We can see if we get to the Witness Statement stage that we can write something that will result in them going no further.  End of the case no Court involved. So fingers crossed.

[lookinforinfo]

DCBL are brave enough when knocking on someone's door  who doesn't know the Law.

But in Court the Judge does know a lot more than them and the ginger tom cat in next door's house knows more than DCBL.

So just relax your son is not liable for any charges.

Nor is the Motability driver.

[lookinforinfo]

That is very good news for your case Laura. It is also another reason to use in your son's defence should Bank push it.

[lookinforinfo]

Oh dear. What a shock they are going to get when they discover that the registered keeper.  Is Motability.

They have been chasing the wrong people and now it is too late for them now to pursue them

 

Not that the PCN is keeper compliant anyway.

I have said it before Laura and I will say it again, your son will get off scot free so just relax and get on with your life and taking care of your son as you have always done 

[lookinforinfo]

Laura that is wonderful news. I am so pleased for you and your son.  You would have won anyway but for them to kindly cancel it for you makes that part of your life a whole lot easier. 

[lookinforinfo]

Laura don't forget that even the IAS appeal officer more or less suggested that your son had paid -

"The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again."

Simple mistake that many people make-inputting the wrong registration number. Baroness Walmsley took TFL to Court and won over a similar case as yours son's. The Judge pointed out that the Law was designed to punish those who didn't pay, not those who had paid.

You have a difficult decision to make over whether to go to Court or not. It cannot be easy for you knowing that perhaps the best way to not have to pay the PCN is to go to Court and yet you can only guess how it may affect your son.

i was looking back at your thread and saw that you had crossed out the address of the car park that the alleged breach occurred. I wonder if you would be good enough to include the whole address that is on he original PCN including the postcode to see if there is anything further to help you and your son.

[lookinforinfo]

The registration number you  quoted belongs to a Ford Kuga. Was that the car that your grandson was helping the owner of?

[lookinforinfo]

 

Don't forget that even the IAS appeal officer more or less suggested that your son had paid -

"The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again."

Simple mistake that many people make-inputting the wrong registration number. Baroness Walmsley took TFL to Court and won over a similar case as yours son's. The Judge pointed out that the Law was designed to punish those who didn't pay, not those who had paid.

You have a difficult decision to make over whether to go to Court or not. It cannot be easy for you knowing that perhaps the best way to not have to pay the PCN is to go to Court and yet you can only guess how it may affect your son.

i was looking back at your thread and saw that you had crossed out the address of the car park that the alleged breach occurred. I wonder if you would be good enough to include the whole address that is on he original PCN including the postcode to see if there is anything further to help you and your son.

[lookinforinfo]

It's good to see you back on here Laura. 

Dx will respond when he gets home. He is very efficient like that. 

In the meantime have you received the witness statement from Bank? And you have completed one yourself ? 

I know the thought of going to Court can be quite daunting but the one you are going to is nothing like the ones you see in films.

The Judge does not wear a wig and the whole proceedings are pretty informal.

Just go there with your son knowing that you will win and don't forget to tell your son that too.

He has nothing to worry about.

he won't have to pay a penny and you should get your car fare and parking fees paid and a days pay if you have taken the whole day off work.

[lookinforinfo]

Laura their Witness Statement will come if they decide to go to Court.

Included with it will be a document from the Court advising you of the time and date of the case.

Also included will be all the copies of the PCNs sent as well as letters from the unregulated debt collectors and their sixth rate solicitors.

On top of that they include the contract they have with the landowners and a map of the car park etc. 

I doubt you will have received that as yet and I hope you never will.

[lookinforinfo]

Yes it would be  great and we will do everything we can to help you with your Witness statement so that they drop the case when they read it.

[lookinforinfo]

 I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to  represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering  in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate .

Even their  own  IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said 

" The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again."

That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point.  But I am sorry to say  that you should not count on it.

 

[lookinforinfo]

 

laura, I know you have a lot going on in your life so as a reminder if you look at post 16 on your thread that is way back on page 1 you posted up the response from the IAS Adjudicator where around about paragraph 10 I repeated what they said "based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again."

In other words your grandson put in the number plate of the lady he helped instead of your number after he sorted out the lady's own number. It is a very easy mistake to make. What is so unusual that the Adjudicator took the time to explain how it could have happened not only for your benefit but for information to Bank who should have taken notice and dropped proceedings.

But that letter is a great asset for you and your son.