University of Leeds (Hospital) ANPR PCN -

[lookinforinfo]

You could go back and explain that the as PCN is not compliant with PoFA 2012 the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable for the debt.

The PCN does not ask that the keeper should pay   the charge as it should under  Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - . As it doesn't the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Therefore it would be advisable to cancel the PCN since there is no chance of you winning in Court. As you now know the keeper is not liable to issue a court summons would be in breach of his GDPR.

[Chimichanga]

. You crack me up!

[Chimichanga]

Thanks LFI. Should I send that to the appeals team at the University or is that shooting myself in the foot by letting them know I’m ‘in the know’?

[Chimichanga]

A quick phone call to the council... they tell me that the roads Willow Terrace Road and Vernon Road (Just before the bend leading to another car park), are both adopted by the council and so one would assume double yellow line parking rules do actually apply there. So unless they can show that the driver was parked in the car park surely they can't pursue this?

Dear Parking Appeals,

I appreciate yur kind offer of reducing the charge, however, there is no valid reason for the charge to the registered keeper in the first place. Firstly because (as I understand it) the car was parked on Vernon Road outside the Chapel. The road is council owned (as confirmed by the council a short time ago). Since the road is council owned and adopted by the council then normal double Yellow Parking Rules apply here.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that:

Under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] -

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;

The PCN does not ask that the keeper should pay the charge as it should under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - . As it doesn't the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Under Schedule 4 S9[2] [a] 

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

There is no mention of the period of parking on the PCN. 

The timing mentioned on the PCN by way of the images, is the time spent between the arrival and departure  of the car which involves driving to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit. This therefore cannot be called a parking period.  This reinforces that the keeper is not responsible.

In order to rely on Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the PCN must meet all the criteria in order to recover from the Registered Keeper. Since you have not met this criteria the Keeper is not liable and is under no obligation to name the driver (which they unfortunately cannot due to their advanced Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia).

I would again politely request you to cancel the PCN since there is no chance of you winning in Court.Since you now know the keeper is not liable, to issue a court summons would be in breach of their GDPR.

How's that?

[lookinforinfo]

That should work but never underestimate the power of greed of  parking companies .

[Nicky Boy]

Again,

I'd be tempted to be a little more simple, but vague.

If you're absolutely positive that the vehicle was parked on council owned property...

Just point out that they have no power to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked on a public road. (No more than that, don't name the road, just leave them guessing).

Also, as you have already pointed out, the Registered Keeper has a medical condition which prevents them from driving, so was defintely not driving the vehicle at the time. Unfortunately, due to his condition, he is also unable to name one of several possible drivers.

If they now insist taking recovery or legal action, in full knowledge of the above, they would be in breach of the data protection act.

You would certainly consider a claim in this regard and compensation for such claims have been known to run into thousands of pounds.

 

Wait for comment from other regulars.

[Chimichanga]

Thanks NickyBoy and Lookingforinfo

have double checked online and yes the land is definitely public. 
 

ok will redraft. Do you suggest I leave out the sch4 bits too?

thank you!

[lookinforinfo]

No please include the Schedule 4  bits since those are the ones that exonerate the keeper regardless of who owns what part of the road. 

[Nicky Boy]

POFA Schedule 4 doesn't apply to parking on public roads.

However, you could vaguely mention that POFA has not been complied with and adherence to POFA is a requirement of their own Code of Practice, which must be complied with to enable them to obtain your details from DVLA.

As they haven't followed their own COP, it also amounts to breach of GDPR.

Double whammy.

 

Any other comments guys?

[FTMDave]

I'm thinking of what tone to use with them.

Normally we would give a PPC a torrent of abuse to show that we had sussed them as charlatans and were refusing to cooperate.

However, they have been (sort of) reasonable with the reduction.  Maybe best to continue the polite tone for now.

I would keep any reply short & sweet.  As they have already been told, the car was parked on a public road, not in their car park, and they have no right to issue their invoices for cars not parked on their property.  You have checked with the council that the road in question is a public road.  Even if the car had been parked on their property they have not followed the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, the person with advanced Alzheimer's.  Something along those lines.

When you get a minute please post up a new draft based on the various ideas from the regulars.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Nicky Boy if the car was parked on a public road and PoFA didn't apply, then  PoFA  should not have been quoted on their PCN.  

[Chimichanga]

Agreed lookingforinfo. They’re asserting that the car was parked in their car park. They’ve come to this conclusion because the ANPR isn’t directly outside the car park it’s positioned on the road leading to the car park, and it captured the car going in and out of that area on the road itself. 
I’m assuming they are defining the whole area as private land and in their ‘orange zone’ but  the main roads are public and any orange zone signs are placed beyond the ANPR cameras.

[Nicky Boy]

Idiots.

Same as regular PPC's

[lookinforinfo]

I am in agreement with Dave on this. They didn't have to reduce to £20 if they didn't know that the keeper wasn't the driver.

[Nicky Boy]

Not harsh at all..

They couldn't expect anything politer. (Is that a word? I think not).

[brassnecked]

Yes tells them why they are wasting their time, excellent.

[FTMDave]

I've had to hide your post with the docx file, but the content is quoted below.

All your personal details are present in docx files, making you easily identifiable.

3 hours ago, Chimichanga said:

Ok drafted a letter. Maybe its a bit too @r$ey? I can try be more polite if you think it's harsh. 

Thanks 

 

Dear…

Thank you for your prompt reply and for offering to reduce the invoice amount from £80 to £20.

I am, however, a little confused.

Again from my understanding the car was not parked in the car park but on a public road, on double yellow lines displaying a disabled badge. This is in line with LA rules. It is also my understanding that only the council can issue fines for public roads. Leeds University do not have the right to issue an invoice for a car not parked on their land. I have checked with the council and they confirmed that the road where the vehicle was parked is council adopted and is therefore funded with public funds.

If the car had been parked on your property, in the car park as you allege, it seems that you have not followed the provisions of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to transfer liability from the driver (from who you are requesting payment) to the keeper. I stated in my previous email that the Registered Keeper does not and cannot drive due to advanced Alzheimers and vascular dementia. So since we know the keeper was definitely not the driver they are under no obligation to pay this invoice. Due to the nature of their medical condition they are also unable to name one of many possible drivers and, incidentally, under no obligation do so even if they could.

Adherence to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is a requirement of your own code of practice and must be complied with in order to request details from the DVLA.

So again, in light of this information, I would politely request that you cancel the PCN, which I’m sure you can see has been issued in error.

Thank you.

Yours,
xxxxxxx

 

[Chimichanga]

Oh . Thank you

[Chimichanga]

And todays reply which came minutes after the email was sent!

…

The vehicle was captured entering and exiting at the times and date stated on the letter and therefore remained on University land – the point at which they entered/exited is where University land begins.

Once a Parking Charge Notice is issued we request the registered owner details from the DVLA. If the registered owner is not the driver of the vehicle at the time the PCN was issued they can transfer the liability to the driver as stated and provided on the letter. 

In your initial appeal you stated:

“The driver of the vehicle was transporting a disabled badge holder to  their hospital appointment and in the absence of any actual disabled parking facilities by the Jubilee Wing sought parking elsewhere. The driver drove to the 'Orange Zone' car park and after reading the sign in the car park saw that they could not park there without an orange zone permit and so left the car park immediately. The driver then parked the car on double yellow lines on the road outside the car park and before all the signage for the orange zone but still within the ANPR monitored area”.

This leads me to believe you spoke to the driver of the vehicle at the time and they did remain on University land and therefore should have paid for their stay.

You also stated:

“Since the driver was not parked in the orange zone or in the car park they assumed usual double yellow lines parking applied for disabled badge holders and left the car parked there displaying the blue badge for the duration of the appointment in Jubilee Wing.

The University of Leeds is privately owned land so this reasoning does not apply. Orange Zone signage specifically states “Vehicles must be parked fully within the confines of a single marked parking bay. There is also a ‘Private Land’ sign at the entrance and refers drivers to check the signage. 

I would like to point out at this stage that although a mistake MAY have been made, the hospital was not deprived of any income for the car park as the car was parked outside of the car park itself”.

Given your statements it has been proven the T&C’s of parking on University land have been breached and therefore this PCN still stands.

If you wish to appeal the PCN then please find the relevant information in my previous email. We will not respond to any further correspondence regarding this PCN.

Pfft! Looks like I’ll be court bound with the poor registered keeper then. 

[honeybee13]

The original PCN states that the car was parked for 4 hours 04 minutes. Is there any explanation for how the driver says the car is in one place and the PPC say it was somewhere else please?

I'm just trying to see ways around their arguments, like the rest of the guys here.

HB

[Chimichanga]

The time of 4hrs and 4 mins is the time between time of entry and time of exit not parking. The PCN also states that ‘by parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions’. No car park was parked in! As clearly stated in both emails. 
 

they have not provided the timings for actual parking anywhere. Only time of entry and exit. 

[honeybee13]

Sorry, I should have phrased that differently. Can you see a reason why the car would have passed the camera twice in 4 hours?

HB

[lookinforinfo]

The elephant in the room which they did not mention was the keeper was not the driver and the PCN is non compliant.

I would write back to them stating that this letter is not an appeal. The  University of Leeds has been informed that the keeper could not be the driver and the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012.  Ergo the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. While  that point was ignored on the appeal,  should they decide to take the matter further and instruct the Court for instance, that will be taken as a breach of keeper GDPR and as that can involve compensation which could be  as much as £2000 where certain types of disability are concerned, is it worth the risk?

 

[honeybee13]

LFI does it again. 

HB

[Nicky Boy]

Starting to look like we need to treat the university the same was as lll other PPC charlatans.

Looks like to OP has ample ammunition for a court case.

Revert to usual tactics of ignoring until letter of claim?