CPP/GroupNexus/Reef Parking ANPR PCN - Westgate Shopping Park, Basildon, Essex ***Cancelled by landowner***

[LtColumbo]

Good evening,

 

1 Date of the infringement

20/05/2022

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

Date issued: 13/06/2022 (24 days)

 

3 Date received:

Unfortunately, can't remember.
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

Yes

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

Yes
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

Yes
 

7 Who is the parking company?

CP Plus Limited T/A GroupNexus

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Westgate Shopping Park, Basildon

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

BPA
 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here.

No

 

 

Please may I seek advice from this wonderful community?

 

I entered this car park at 17:54 and exited at 18:33. Controlled hours end at 18:00, so only 6 chargeable minutes.

 

When I attempted to make payment I found that the Reef ticket machine was offline.  I wasn't sure if this was due to controlled hours having ended.  Another driver was also in the same position and we both agreed that it would be prudent to take a photo of the screen.

 

I received the NTK after 24 days and it mentions the The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of this forum and wrongly assumed that I should appeal as directed.  I mentioned the machine being offline, the chargeable time and included the photo.

 

I received an email reply which said, "The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly."

 

I replied with, "In response to your request, I can confirm that the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred is the same as those listed in your original letter."  - - - I am actually neither the keeper or the appellant listed in the appeal, so made a mistake here.

 

Their next reply said, "The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. We require driver details to ensure that our records are correct and up to date as the driver is liable for the Charge. While we are aware of whom the registered keeper of the vehicle is, please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at the time this Charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly."

 

My reply: "I have previously confirmed that the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was issued are the same as those listed in your original letter."

 

Then my appeal was rejected with the following response, "In accordance with our industry Code of Practice, we are required to keep all correspondence in relation to this Parking Charge for 2 years. Please be advised that we do not share any personal data with third parties.

 

The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations. 

 

Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the need to pay, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Clear signs throughout this site advise drivers how to pay the parking fee by phone or online if you were unable to pay at the machines on site.

 

In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected."

 

Next steps:

- Do you think I should try complaining to the landowner first?

 

- Shall I file a POPLA appeal asap?  If so, should I be looking to appeal on multiple grounds?

 

Many thanks in advance!

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

as they will

ignore until/unless you get a letter of claim.

please scan up BOTH sides of all paperwork in/out to one mass pdf after redaction as jpg files 

read upload

 

[LtColumbo]

Many thanks for your reply, dx100uk.

Noted.

Sure - will try and upload the pdf today 

[lookinforinfo]

Smart parking were kicked out of that car park before Nexus. Hopefully Nexus won't be long in joining them.

 

They are very bad in insisting that they be told the name and address of who was driving..

 

And they never attempted to answer your query about the offline ticket machine.

 

Nexus have a habit of issuing a PCN shortly after the alleged offence quickly followed up by another about two weeks later. 

 

could you please post up the first PCN received.

 

A letter of complaint [sent by the  keeper ] should be sent to the BPA advising them that Nexus are not abiding by the BPA Code of Conduct by demanding the driver's details.

 

It is also not complying with the Law by asking for the details. And asking why they are pursuing  the keeper when their machine was inoperative.  { i would be inclined to send a copy of the Letter to the ICO just to concentrate a few minds.] BPA might then be inclined to advice the cancellation of the PCN.

[LtColumbo]

Yes, totally agree with your comments.  During my research I came across this article:

 

Westgate Car Park, Basildon, free as Smart Parking loses control

Basildon car park goes FREE after owners' legal action against 'exploitative' Smart Parking

WWW.ECHO-NEWS.CO.UK

---

A HUGELY controversial car park has been shut down and parking temporarily made free following legal action by the owners.

 

 

I am halfway through preparing the PDF and happy to send letters the BPA and the ICO.

 

 

[LtColumbo]

First PCN attached.  I am hoping to upload the reminder later today or tomorrow.

 

Thanks again!

NTK 13-06-2022.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN does not comply with the requirements of PoFA. It is supposed to arrive within 14 days of the offence as it didn't they have acccepted that you as the keeper cannot be held responsible for payment of the PCN.

[LtColumbo]

reminder letter 10-08-22.pdf

 

Attaching a copy of the reminder letter.

 

Very pleased to hear that the PCN does not comply.

 

So just to confirm:

 

- I shouldn't bother complaining to the landowner or filing a POPLA appeal.

 

- I should ignore until/unless I get a letter of claim.

 

- A letter of complaint should be sent to the BPA.

 

- Plus a copy of the letter to the ICO.

 

 

[FTMDave]

On 27/08/2022 at 03:44, LtColumbo said:

- I should ignore until/unless I get a letter of claim.

[LtColumbo]

Firstly, thank you to everyone above for your kind advice.  I really wouldn't know where I stand with this PCN without the help of this community.

 

Apologies if this sounds like repetition but is there any benefit from filing a POPLA appeal (to cover all bases)?

 

Also, what should I do if I receive a letter of claim?

 

I have shared my experience with my local Councillor but have not received a reply as yet.  Is there anything else I can do to help others who might find themselves in the same position?

Edited August 29, 2022 by LtColumbo
incomplete

[lookinforinfo]

Quite a few parking companies do not take motorists to Court. And some do issue letters of Claim but don't carry through to Court but no doubt picking up a number of motorists who then pay up rather then perhaps facing Court.

 

if you do get one, let us know and we can point you to a number of snotty letters that you can send to them showing that you aren't afraid of them or going to court and no way are you going to pay them.

Then it is just a question if they have the bottle to take it further. Some times they do, sometimes they don't.

[LtColumbo]

Great! I'm ready for a game of chicken  

 

 

In the meantime, I will write a letter of complaint to the BPA as per your advice and see if that leads to a cancellation of the PCN.

 

Will keep you posted with developments.  Thanks again

[LtColumbo]

Today I have received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of creditor: CP Plus Ltd.

 

I understand this is different to the 'Letter of Claim' mentioned previously.

 

I would be sincerely grateful for any advice on what to do next.

 

Thank you.

[FTMDave]

Debt Recovery Plus are an uninterested third party who have no power whatsoever as it's not their debt.

 

Laugh at them and use their letter as hamster bedding, to play paper aeroplanes or another purpose of your choice.

[FTMDave]

Rereading your thread I'm getting very confused with your first post.

 

Is this right?

 

You are not the keeper of the vehicle.

 

You wrote to them using the name of the keeper of the vehicle, and told them the keeper was the driver.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Reading the link about Smart getting the boot, the landowners seem to have been pretty decent, and after the intervention of two MPs are likely to be wary of the PPCs.

 

Surely it's worth a punt to e-mail them, explain what happened, lay it on thick about being a genuine customer, attach any proof of purchasing, point out that it's predatory behaviour by the parking company to keep machines malfunctioning so they can issue tickets - and demand they call their dogs off  servicedesk@wearemapp.com  https://www.westgateshoppingbasildon.co.uk/info/   

 

[LtColumbo]

I was mildly concerned but now just very amused - thank you!

 

Correct - I am not the keeper of the vehicle or "The Appellant".  I submitted the appeal on behalf of the appellant who is elderly and not internet savvy and also not the keeper.

 

I can understand the confusion...

 

The email reply to the appeal from Nexus was delivered to me due to alias forwarding - ie. appellant@domain.co.uk used in the appeal is just a domain alias for me@domain.co.uk.

 

Also, the driver and I share the same first name initial and surname.  I replied from my email and signed off as [First name initial]. [Surname] which could be either me or the appellant.

 

I wrote "I can confirm that the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred is the same as those listed in your original letter." 

 

I remember thinking Nexus' insistence on naming the driver was strange hence some ambiguity was maintained (with the above two lines).  However, I made a genuine mistake in mixing up the keeper and appellant here.

 

I hope that clarifies my first post a bit.

 

 

I did wonder about contacting the landowners.  Sounds like a good shout.

[FTMDave]

First the easy & good news.

 

The government's Code of Practice gives a 5-minute consideration period at the start to get parked up and read the signage.  So does the fleecers' own trade association's CoP (the BPA).

 

You took, er, one minute more and that was clearly down to a malfunctioning machine which you had the good sense to take a photo of.  Well done.  Game, set & match.

 

While I think I am, modestly, quite a bright bulb in the box, I'm still not getting it with who is who.  Sorry to keep harping on but it is for a reason, to see if you still have legal protection under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.  A couple of questions and we should get there.

 

So there is you, er, Joe Bloggs.  Then there is an elderly person, er, Old Jim.  Then there is also the keeper, er, John Mysterio.  Is that right?

[LtColumbo]

Great to hear!

 

Sounds very Cluedo-like!  I think it was Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick.

 

In all seriousness, that is right.  Old Jim is "The Appellant" who received emails following the online appeal.  Letters have been going to John Mysterio as the keeper.

 

 

[FTMDave]

I don't understand why someone other than the keeper has appealed or indeed can appeal.

 

Surely it's the keeper the fleecers are pursuing.

[brassnecked]

Yes its confusing, are you doing it on behalf of the keeper, who the fleecer's now know the identity of.

[LtColumbo]

Apologies for the confusion.

 

The keeper wasn't present but the letter went to them (via ANPR/DVLA).

 

I thought those present would need to appeal rather than the keeper.

[FTMDave]

OK, understood.  I got there in the end!

 

This is good as well.  The keeper hasn't communicated with the fleecers and hasn't outed the driver.

 

They haven't got a hope with keeper liability and the difficulty in paying was their own fault - and you can prove it.

 

Give it a go with the landowners though as well.  Nothing ventured ...

[LtColumbo]

The fleecers not having a hope is exactly what I was hoping to hear - thank you!

 

Tried calling the landowners today.  Was transferred and then strangely reached a generic mobile phone voicemail message.  Will give it a go by email.

[dx100uk]

not often columbo made mistakes, but there you go, you've proved us wrong.

 

On 08/10/2022 at 16:07, LtColumbo said:

I wrote "I can confirm that the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred is the same as those listed in your original letter." 

 

so they now think they know who the driver was, which in law is good enough for a court claim, the registered keeper .. the judge won't swallow all your crafty initial/surname shenanigan tactics.

 

bang shot him in the foot...next time dont poke your nose in or better dont appeal EVER!! or be a man and fess up to the fleecers, let the registered keeper off the hook and take responsibility.

 

sorry but you wrongly tried to be clever here and FAILED. now you need to help this poor sod out and hold a candle in your hand till the midnight hours and it burns your fingers getting him out of this mess.

 

lets hope there is light upon landowners/contract/stores visited or machines.

 

dx