G24 ANPR PCN - appealed - Robin Retail Park, Wigan

[lookinforinfo]

Your theory that because the PCN arrived after 18 days rendering the PCN non PoFA compliant is not quite right. The Law is that a first class  letter is deemed delivered two working days from the date of posting.

Your PCN was dated the 6th April meaning that delivery would be expected  on the  Monday 10 th April  [Saturday and Sunday are not working days ] and so it would have been compliant had it not been Easter Monday. So even though your letter was not received until the 18th April, it was still non compliant by the reason that it was deemed delivered  on Tuesday 11 th April and thus one day late to comply with PoFA.

 

They have this weird notion that the keeper and the driver are the same person which in many cases they are not. But that is why they will continue to write to you because that are now treating you as the driver.  Just ignore them and pointless to appeal to the IAS since they are no more than a kangaroo court and rarely  cancel PCNs. 

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN you posted would not be worded the same as yours. they were late obtaining that driver's data so they could not apply the rules of the protection of freedoms Act 2012 to that PCN. your PCN was posted within the 14 day limit so you would be subject to PoFA 2012 other than they may not have complied with the Parking Period requirement. 

Uner the Act the PCN should include the period of parking on the notice. they have not done that although they have shown the times you entered and left the car park on their photos. but that is not he same as entering them on the PCN . In any case driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking spot to the exit could not be described as being parked so if your PCN was worded the same as that one you posted it would be compliant with PoFA and so you as the keeper would not be liable for the debt.

If you cannot locate your PCN it would be best to sand ham an SAR to resolve that problem since if you are not liable for the charge that means you can relax a nd ignore all the rubbish they will send to you.

[lookinforinfo]

The wording of your PCN compared to the previous one is totally different. Both wrong, but totally different. Do you have the other side of your PCN? If so could please post it up.

At the moment both PCNs do not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. Only the driver is. As long as there is nothing on the back of your PCN to contradict what I said.

I know they quoted a case where they won in which they say the keeper said he wasn't the driver but the Judge  declared that he reckoned he was the driver. However in that case it wasn't a two hour free car park but a permit controlled  Church land. The keeper admitted that he and several drivers had used his car to park there so couldn't be sure if he was the one who parked on that day. He also said that he had not seen the signs.

If he had been there several times then it is reasonable to surmise that he had seen the signs and understood them So the Judge doubted his veracity . As he was aware that the ground was permit controlled and had made no attempt at obtaining a permit the JUdge took a dim view of his behaviour and found him guilty. 

Yours case is nothing like his and as you are definite that you were not the driver it is highly unlikely that you will be found guilty. But I think you should go in at them strongly demanding that they provide the evidence that you said you were the driver since you have always maintained hat you weren't and would like to have a record for the Court that what they declared is wrong.

You have never stated that you were the driver and would like them to withdraw that statement or produce the evidence. Should it get that far as Court you do not want the Judge to think you might have been the driver so you have to tackle it head on straight away so the Judge knows the situation.

By adding the  piece about Judge Ackroyd they are trying to get you worried that you could lose because your Judge might not believe you and also a nudge to your Judge that it is possible the the keeper and driver are the same person.

This is confirmed by Judge Ackroyd in that case-

"The first issue to decide is the issue of identity. The claimant, of course, has to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. It is not to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; it is on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof and the court has to be satisfied on that standard whether the defendant was the person who parked his vehicle. There is no identification evidence, nobody saw him park, he parked early in the morning when in all probability it was dark. He was not seen to drive away his vehicle. The minister cannot provide identification evidence."

The Balance of Probabilities. They have to provide something that helps prove you were the driver.  And it may be that from your phone for instance, you could prove that you were nowhere near the car park at the time of the alleged breach.
 

Confront them and point out that Courts do not believe that the keeper and the driver are the same person 

[lookinforinfo]

There is nothing on the back of your PCN that relates to making the PCN compliant. Therefore as keeper you are not liable. The driver of course is still liable.

If you are not going to confront them about Judge Ackroyd now, then please it make the point in your WS. It is kind of rare for Judges to say that the keeper and driver are the same person. So by them sating that case it is designed to scare you  but more importantly it might encourage the Judge to come to the same conclusion in your case. Whereas the Court normally take the stance that the keeper and driver are not the same person as Judge Ackroyd stated in post 40. Please reread and repeat in your WS what he said as it is important that your Judge gets the picture.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN is non compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apart from its late arrival. 

They are supposed to specify the period of parking. Instead they have used the arrival and departure times which  includes the driving to the parking spot and then driving from the spot to the exit which cannot be called parking. And their wording is wrong elsewhere.

Part of the reason for the PCN is obviously to get money out of you but another factor is to inform you that if the charge has not been paid within 28 days, the keeper then becomes liable for the debt. They haven't said that probably because they acknowledge that their PCN would have arrived late so they cannot transfer  the liability to the keeper.

IPC give motorists five minutes Consideration period to give you time to read the terms of parking in that car park to decide if you want to abide by them or leave free of charge. They also give a ten minute grace period at the end  to allow for hold ups getting out of the car park. That still leaves 15 minutes for you to find if they are unsure who was driving. Was there anything that could have held you up another 15 minutes? 

Your child taking time to get them in and out of the car because of being strapped in. Maybe someone disabled or not as nimble as most people? Loads of traffic in the way or couldn't get out of the car park because the main road was busy.? Trolley was heavy laden and it took time to empty it plus return it to the trolley station which was quite a way away from where you were parked? Etc.etc.