private charge notice

[Glitch]

Why bother writing to the PPC? They've already rejected the appeal.
PPCs generally reject all appeals - it costs them a template letter and a postage stamp and some more punters will cave in and pay at that point.

Sounds like you have a very good case to take to the IAS. The PPC may back down rather than spend time and money fighting it. Include all the reasons you've mentioned but research the other angles that you might not be aware of. Pictures of all the signs and tickets, cite previous legal cases and IAS decisions (if you have access to them) Demand a copy of the contract between the PPC and the landowner to prove they are operating legally.
Make it look professional and comprehensive without waffle and the PPC is likely to back off. You'll need all this and more in the unlikely event it goes to court.

The PPC is probably making enough money not to change things. Obscurity and vagueness lets them snag more victims.

Do you know who the PPC is working for? Is it the property management company, a tenants association, the landowner?
Find out and write to them. They could probably get the PPC to cancel the parking charge and get them to change the parking permits to make them more flexible.

If there is a tenants association make them aware. A win at the IAS will add weight and help others.

Getting the council to improve the street signs is a double edged sword.

I got London Borough of Waltham Forest to stop issuing hundreds of ticket at a non-compliant bus lane. They took the camera down, fixed the signs and road markings. a couple of years later they put the camera back. Lo and behold the wife drove down the bus lane. Couldn't believe it. - banged to rights. I paid the fine.

Here's a PPC ticket I challenged for a friend

 

[Glitch]

Consumer Advice Scotland says:
"There’s no law in Scotland that states the registered keeper of the car is automatically liable for a parking ticket. You are also under no obligation to disclose the details of the driver at the time."
unfortunately they are a bit misleading on the first statement.

Transport (Scotland Act ) 2019 Part 8-Recovery of unpaid parking charges
Clause 95
Right in certain circumstances to recover from keeper of vehicle
(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

the clause then goes on to define the circumstances.

Also Citizens Advice Scotland claim:

"If you’re the registered keeper of the car, you may be sent a ticket. If you didn’t park the car at the time the ticket was issued and you don’t say who the driver was, there’s no law in Scotland that makes you, as the registered keeper, automatically liable for the ticket.

You don’t have to identify who it was that parked the car. It’s still possible that a parking company may try to make you pay the parking charge by taking you to court. You can defend any court action."

Under the 2019 law, you would probably lose in court (assuming it was a straight case), as the companies have been granted the power to recover the charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

The terminology 'automatically liable for a parking ticket' is probably correct, but misleading. The company has to take you to court to recover the unpaid charge. They have been doing that successfully and with more confidence since the law was changed.

Similar, if not the same as the changes made in England and Wales.

I had success with a PPC because of POFA non-compliance, amongst other reasons.

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You have also failed to give the invitation to keeper, 9 (2) (e) in the format prescribed by the Act.

No idea if his applies in Scotland or if your Parking Charge Notice falls into this category.

 

[John Brown]

Only in Cornwall would people wear swimming trunks while driving.

Serious question: Why would a 30 limit not require constant speedometer watching? What's the solution? No speed limits near schools?

 

[Sandyn]

Do you know who the PPC is working for? Is it the property management company, a tenants association, the landowner?
Find out and write to them. They could probably get the PPC to cancel the parking charge and get them to change the parking permits to make them more flexible.

If there is a tenants association make them aware. A win at the IAS will add weight and help others.

Getting the council to improve the street signs is a double edged sword.

There are two identical block of flats. Both blocks have street parking managed by the same company. Each block is managed by a different company. We have already asked the appropriate management company to have the charge dismissed, they said they couldn't. I don't believe that however. You quickly find that no one can do anything to help. Slopey shoulders..... My son is in the tenants association for one of the blocks. He is an owner and therefore will have a contract with the parking company via the management company somewhere in the background, but the contract is just for the parking round his block, but no idea what the limit of that is. There was never a problem with parking until the parking company took over.
The permit he has was issued because his dedicated parking space at the property is being used by NHBC to replace cladding. The parking company should have applied a bit of common sense and cancelled the ticket. It is very sneaky what they have done, which convinces me, they are just after the money. I assume the parking attendants get a bonus for each car the charge?

The area is blocks of flats on a grid, there is total confusion about the road names. I have no idea what the roads are called, I can see why it is a double edged sword

 

[Sandyn]

I got London Borough of Waltham Forest to stop issuing hundreds of ticket at a non-compliant bus lane. They took the camera down, fixed the signs and road markings. a couple of years later they put the camera back. Lo and behold the wife drove down the bus lane. Couldn't believe it. - banged to rights. I paid the fine.

Here's a PPC ticket I challenged for a friend

What goes around comes around!!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Serious question: Why would a 30 limit not require constant speedometer watching? What's the solution? No speed limits near schools?

Because it is a limit, not a target. You should be driving comfortably below the limit not trying to sit exactly on it.

 

[Glitch]

There are two identical block of flats. Both blocks have street parking managed by the same company. Each block is managed by a different company. We have already asked the appropriate management company to have the charge dismissed, they said they couldn't. I don't believe that however. You quickly find that no one can do anything to help. Slopey shoulders..... My son is in the tenants association for one of the blocks. He is an owner and therefore will have a contract with the parking company via the management company somewhere in the background, but the contract is just for the parking round his block, but no idea what the limit of that is. There was never a problem with parking until the parking company took over.
The permit he has was issued because his dedicated parking space at the property is being used by NHBC to replace cladding. The parking company should have applied a bit of common sense and cancelled the ticket. It is very sneaky what they have done, which convinces me, they are just after the money. I assume the parking attendants get a bonus for each car the charge?

The area is blocks of flats on a grid, there is total confusion about the road names. I have no idea what the roads are called, I can see why it is a double edged sword

Sounds like you’re doing all the right things.

Separate contracts with the same PPC for the two blocks? I can see why that might add to the problem.
Each block will want to protect their own parking.

Let us know what happens!

 

[John Brown]

Because it is a limit, not a target. You should be driving comfortably below the limit not trying to sit exactly on it.

Sorry, I have no idea what relevance your comment has.
I was asking why 20 limits near schools are criticized in the grounds that drivers have to stare at their speedometers, instead of concentrating on not hitting schoolchildren, but apparently 30 limits don't provoke the same complaint.

 

[DougT]

Did you have much trouble sorting it out?

I received a fine so telephoned them and they checked my reg number a it was sorted. Good luck

 

[KeithMcC]

Yes in hindsight i should have argued with it more but at the time i was bogged down with other things and i kept forgetting i had the fine even. Oh well live and learn. The PCN guys are scum IMO, money making racket and nothing else.

Its along the same line as police camera vans. Privately contracted companies (not the police) out to make a quick buck only. They do not offer anything in terms of keeping speed down and they are often on high speed roads in concealed spots.

The “Safety Camera” vans and operators only seem to affect those that are actually speeding and therefore breaking the law. So there is a very simple answer!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Sorry, I have no idea what relevance your comment has.
I was asking why 20 limits near schools are criticized in the grounds that drivers have to stare at their speedometers, instead of concentrating on not hitting schoolchildren, but apparently 30 limits don't provoke the same complaint.

My brain in filtered out the ‘not’ in your sentence about 30 limits.
My point was that people shouldn’t need to be looking at their speedometer whatever the speed limit because they shouldn’t be driving in a way that they can exceed it.
The problem is not 20 limits its peoples lack of respect for the safety of others which makes them ‘push’ the limit to satisfy their own selfish desire to not be delayed.

 

[Rorschach]

Keeping to a 20mph limit on a steep down hill stretch is not all that easy to do, keeping to 30 can be tricky in some circumstances as well. It's not the limit though that matters, it's the fact you have to keep to it or face a serious penalty that's the problem, you are going to be watching your speedo as no matter how confident you are in your judgement of speed you still need to check if you want to avoid the penalty.

I'd rather people watched out for hazards personally, a couple of mph higher or lower is less important than keeping your eyes on the road IMO.

Anyway we know it's nothing to do with safety and all about money, if it was about safety then cars would automatically limit their top to the speed limit on the road, the technology to do so is simple and has been available for years.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Keeping to a 20mph limit on a steep down hill stretch is not all that easy to do, keeping to 30 can be tricky in some circumstances as well. It's not the limit though that matters, it's the fact you have to keep to it or face a serious penalty that's the problem, you are going to be watching your speedo as no matter how confident you are in your judgement of speed you still need to check if you want to avoid the penalty.

I'd rather people watched out for hazards personally, a couple of mph higher or lower is less important than keeping your eyes on the road IMO.

Anyway we know it's nothing to do with safety and all about money, if it was about safety then cars would automatically limit their top to the speed limit on the road, the technology to do so is simple and has been available for years.

I don’t agree that it’s not about safety. People make it about the money because their money means more to people than other people’s safety. No you can’t argue that if it was about safety they would fit limiters. That imposes a cost on everyone even those who don’t speed. Perhaps instead of a fine or speed awareness course those caught speeding should have mandatory speed limiters as they obviously can’t be trusted to limit themselves.

 

[Rorschach]

I don’t agree that it’s not about safety. People make it about the money because their money means more to people than other people’s safety. No you can’t argue that if it was about safety they would fit limiters. That imposes a cost on everyone even those who don’t speed. Perhaps instead of a fine or speed awareness course those caught speeding should have mandatory speed limiters as they obviously can’t be trusted to limit themselves.

If you don't speed, the limiter wouldn't have any effect on you would it?

 

[paulrbarnard]

If you don't speed, the limiter wouldn't have any effect on you would it?

Correct but it has a cost. Speed cameras only effect those that speed. That was my point. Limiters would financially impact everyone not just those who drive badly.

 

[artie]

I see we've digressed a little from parking to speeding, Of course parking can be dangerous but not so much as speeding. I know that speed doesn't cause accidents, I don't even see it as a contributing factor, but it certainly can increase the severity of injury/damage to those involved, so a prudent speed is advisable.

Twenty mile speed limit at a school is I suppose justifiable because of the unpredictability of children/youth.

But I find some 30 or 40 limits just seem to be there to make a trap for the vans.

Eighty or a 100 years ago the stopping distance for a motor vehicle was probably three times what it is now, streets were half as wide or less and the lights and wipers were abysmal . But with all the advances we have made the limit is still 30.

I often wonder why 30 was picked.

 

[Rorschach]

Correct but it has a cost. Speed cameras only effect those that speed. That was my point. Limiters would financially impact everyone not just those who drive badly.

What cost? The technology already exists in most cars already. The savings made by introducing them would be massive though, no prosecution and admin costs, no speed camera costs and the wages of the people who maintain them. And, if speed really does kill as some people are adamant it does, how do you quantify the costs of lives saved? We seem happy to spend millions on that at the moment.

Speed cameras made sense 2 or 3 decades ago maybe, but if your goal is to reduce speeding and save lives then there are better ways to do it.
I'd be quite happy with a limiter on my car, in fact I would gladly pay to have one fitted. I never (intentionally) break the speed limit so it would only be a good thing for me.

 

[TRITON]

I have great sympathy for people who set fire to parking charge machines.

 

[Sandyn]

Speed limiters are coming

 

[John Brown]

I see we've digressed a little from parking to speeding, Of course parking can be dangerous but not so much as speeding. I know that speed doesn't cause accidents, I don't even see it as a contributing factor, but it certainly can increase the severity of injury/damage to those involved, so a prudent speed is advisable.

Twenty mile speed limit at a school is I suppose justifiable because of the unpredictability of children/youth.

But I find some 30 or 40 limits just seem to be there to make a trap for the vans.

Eighty or a 100 years ago the stopping distance for a motor vehicle was probably three times what it is now, streets were half as wide or less and the lights and wipers were abysmal . But with all the advances we have made the limit is still 30.

I often wonder why 30 was picked.

Actually, there are people campaigning to have the stopping distances in the Highway Code revised upwards, as apparently the average reaction time was originally underestimated.
Personally, I think it's something you learn to pass the test. If you actually had to estimate the distance of the hazard in front of you, and then mentally look up a time, it'd be too late.
It's all b*ll*cks anyway, obviously, as I see people tailgating at a few feet doing over 70.