Alliance Parking MNPR CCTV PCN - Appealed - Now PAPLOC - Sea View Car Park, Polzeath

[BillyBobbar]

Please answer the following questions.

1 Date of the infringement 03/01/2023

2 Date on the NTK  16/01/2023

3 Date received 23/01/2023

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

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, on PCN with date / time of entry and departure, note parking was paid for between 13:03 and 13:34 on the day via the JustPark app but the PCN bases the charge on the full duration from entry to exit of 12:55-13:34

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N, initial challenge by email but I have not formally appealed as Alliance Parking only allow appeals at this stage if you select that you are the driver or give notice the registration was cloned or car stolen.

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Y to email challenge, in PDF

7 Who is the parking company? Alliance Parking

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Sea View Car Park, Polzeath
 

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

Side note,

we were managing two young children (1yo and 3yo) one of whom wasn’t feeling very well after driving around windy roads, hence the (short) delay in purchasing parking in the first place.

We would have happily purchased a ticket for a longer duration if they’d known this was going to be an issue!

PCN plus email challenge and reply.pdf

[dx100uk]

threads merged posts tidied.

 

 

[FTMDave]

So the fleecers openly admit they are not using POFA.

 

Therefore they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

 

They have to sue the driver.

 

And they don't know who this person is.

 

So that's curtains for them

[BillyBobbar]

We’ve been discussing that - their parking organisation code of practice (IPC) states in 25.1 that they need to implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their business, including POFA. Are they going against that or are they, as they state, compliant with POFA because Schedule 4 (6) of POFA does allow them the ability to pursue other remedies such as pursuing a civil claim through the courts?

 

Secondly, aren’t they relying on POFA to source the keeper data in order to comply with data protection legislation on the one hand and then deciding that they don’t need to issue notices in compliance with it on the other hand?

 

What would be an appropriate response to their email do you think? I’ve seen some suggestions online such as asking them to prove that they have agreement from the landowner to there being no grace period and evidencing that their signage at the time complements what they are relying on in their notice….?

 

Also what are the likely outcomes from this point? I’m new to all this and annoyed they feel like they should be charging such extortionate amounts over what should really be within a grace period, or only a minor overstay.

Edited February 15, 2023 by BillyBobbar
Adding extra information

[FTMDave]

The appropriate response to their e-mail is - to not respond.

 

Think about it.  Are they ever going to back down and say you're right?  Of course not.

 

But it's irrelevant unless they have the gonads to take you to court.  We don't have a single thread from Alliance Parking on the site where they have dared do court.  And they've already admitted they can't use POFA.  Simply laugh at them and their stupid letters.

 

But never ignore a Letter before Claim and come back here if your receive one.

[dx100uk]

the photos clearly show this is CCTV capture not an ANPR system.

 

their ntk is before 29 days. invalid.

 

your appeal is incorrect by stating they are outside of the 14 days for anpr time limits.

wrongly refering to pofa which they are not relying upon as they state.

 

this is a MNPR so they should have attached a PCN to the windscreen.  another going no where vanishing windscreen ticket case... copied the common UKPC trick.....end of no escape.

[BillyBobbar]

Thanks, is that Because there is no license plate recorded on the photos? What makes the notice invalid? There was definitely no ticket on the windscreen.

[Nicky Boy]

The fleecers state that they aren't relying on POFA, but on reading the IPC code of practice...

 

Appendix 5
Example Notice to Keeper – Where no Notice to Driver Issued previously issued (where PoFA liability is not sought the statutory warning must be removed)

"Please be warned: 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 Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii)we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we willhave the right to recover from you, so much of that Parking Charge as remains unpaid."

 

They haven't removed the statutory warning from the NTK at all.

They've left it in (verbatim) and plonked some of their own twaddle at the end...

"based on the fact that on the balance of probabilities (the standard of proof for civil cases) the keeper was indeed the driver"

 

So, theyve broken their ATA COP... which they need to comply with in order to apply for DVLA info.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[BillyBobbar]

Exactly, in my limited understanding it looks like they’re relying on POFA in order to seek the DVLA info but are not complying with it in their notice (including timescales) and attempt to pin the liability on the keeper. 
 

I’m still tempted to write back to point out some of the basic errors and encourage them to back off / not take it further, is your view that it’s not worth it except if they issue a Letter of Claim?

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, BillyBobbar said:

What makes the notice invalid? There was definitely no ticket on the windscreen.

In such cases they are supposed to send their bilge out between 29 and 56 days after the event to comply with POFA, and they haven't.

 

They admit themselves they are not using POFA.

 

No POFA = no-one to sue.

[BillyBobbar]

In the Appendix 5, that paragraph is the only section which says “please be warned” or similar, and the top of the form states it should be removed if POFA liability is not sought…

 

it reads as very confused to me, seeking liability from the keeper and information from the DVLA due to POFA but then stating they’re not relying on POFA and will seek to recover under civil liability on the basis that more likely than not the keeper is also the driver.

 

Does this mean they have sought the information from the DVLA under false pretences and could therefore be in trouble with the ICO?

[lookinforinfo]

Their NTK is neither fish nor fowl. It is too late for one and too early for the other.

 

My main criticism of the NTK is that it does not conform with PoFA or the IPC Code and while they say they are not using PoFA they do have to observe the conditions imposed by the Act when it comes to drawing up their PCN.

 

They have sent you a Notice to Keeper but  Alliance are claiming that it is the driver who must respond or the keeper has to reveal who was driving if an appeal is to be made. This is at odds with PoFA viz. Schedule 4 S( [2][g] "inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;"   Note inform the keeper not the driver.

Then again in Schedule4 S( 8] [a] "

(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—

(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it;   [Once again it is for the attention of the keeper not the driver].

 

Alliance have also failed to comply with their IPC Code of Conduct.

20.1 If an Internal Appeal is unsuccessful, Operators must notify the appellant, at the same time the appeal is rejected, that they have the right to further appeal to the IAS. Operators must allow Motorists a further 21 days to pay the Parking Charge or to exercise this right of appeal. During this period, Operators must not add on any additional fees for non-payment.

 

What Alliance have done is to say that as you wrote in as the keeper and did not reveal the name of the driver they are not recognising  that your appeal was an appeal. Therefore they have not given you the opportunity to appeal the the IAS. 

 

Complaint to the DVLA as Alliance not complying with the IPC Code which they must if they are to be supplied with data from motorists.

 

[Nicky Boy]

FTM,

 

Appendix 6 is an Example Notice to Hirer... so isn't applicable?

[BillyBobbar]

3 hours ago, FTMDave said:

In such cases they are supposed to send their bilge out between 29 and 56 days after the event to comply with POFA, and they haven't.

 

They admit themselves they are not using POFA.

 

No POFA = no-one to sue.

Can I check what it is which means they should issue the notice between 29 and 56 days? I can see in POFA Schedule 4 that there are 2 types of notices to keeper, one which should be issued in 14 days where no notice to driver has been issued (clause 9) and one where a notice to driver has been issued and not paid (clauses 7 and 8), such that the notice would be issued between 29 and 56 days, however no notice to driver was issued and they don’t claim that one was.

Edited February 15, 2023 by BillyBobbar
Correction

[Nicky Boy]

Bottom line is that they write these invoices in pseudo legal jargon, hoping to intimidate their victim into paying up.

They have simply dug themselves a big hole that they could not climb out of in a courtroom.

 

Just sit back and wait for more "scary, threatening letters" telling you that they MIGHT do all manner of things.

 

File it all away and come back here if you ever get a "letter of claim"  (like they've threatened you with).

 

Oh, and keep it all for 6 years, because that's how long they have to pursue you in law (It has happened!).

 

Also let them know in writing if you ever move house in that time.

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

FTM,

 

Appendix 6 is an Example Notice to Hirer... so isn't applicable?

Spot on Nicky Boy.

 

Apologies.  The result of me quickly reading stuff while also walking out the door to work.

 

I'll delete my confusing post above.

[FTMDave]

10 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

What Alliance have done is to say that as you wrote in as the keeper and did not reveal the name of the driver they are not recognising  that your appeal was an appeal. Therefore they have not given you the opportunity to appeal the the IAS.

Well spotted LFI!

[brassnecked]

Shot in foot no chance of them winning a case.

[FTMDave]

@BillyBobbaryour reading of POFA is spot on, however the fleecers are quite clear that they are not using POFA.

[BillyBobbar]

Letter of claim incoming… I’ll sort a PDF.

[BillyBobbar]

Letter of claim attached

Letter of Claim Feb 2023.pdf

[FTMDave]

Snotty letter time.

[BillyBobbar]

First draft - too polite…? 
 

Dear Litigation Department:

RE: Letter of Claim dated 17th February 2023

 

Thank you for your Letter of Claim which I read with interest and some amusement.

 

Specifically that you think your Notice to Keeper dated 16/01/2023, riddled with errors and procedural failures as it is, constitutes a valid reason to attempt to extract £170 from me as the keeper of the car registration ______, rather than from the driver at the time.

 

Despite having written your Letter of Claim to double down on this fanciful and speculative invoice please be assured that I have no need to be parting with any money due to you having managed to undermine yourselves in a number of ways.

You might want to think about investing in someone who actually knows how to do these things properly before trying it on again. Don't worry, I'll make sure that the DVLA also knows that you're abusing their processes when you can't even comply with the IPC code of practice, weak as it is. Good luck when the government's parking code of practice finally gets approved!

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by BillyBobbar

[Nicky Boy]

Definitely too polite.

[FTMDave]

What you are actually communicating to the fleecers is fine.

 

We'd prefer more snottiness though