PCN - Work car park - Advice Sought.

[ZOLLAR]

Morning,

Firstly sorry for the long post.

Looking for advice on a PCN received, I’m aware of the usual sites and previous threads regarding these but I think this maybe a tad different (feel free to tell me it’s not).

The company I work for has a contract with a parking firm to regulate the company car park (which I believe is also owned by the parking firm), the car park is solely for the use of the employees for which we pay around £50 per month.
We’re issued with a parking permit which is to be displayed in the windscreen.

Unfortunately on the 25th September I forgot to place the permit in the window before leaving the car (I used to have it under a tax holder however changed cars and just haven’t bothered doing the same, oh how much hassle I could have avoided!)

So, at the end of the day I returned to the car with a parking charge on the window confirming there had been a contravention and a notice would be sent soon (received just before the weekend and below).

Now this has happened a number of times with employees, a few of them have gone to court and won their cases, one I believe didn’t.

Unfortunately whilst my company is very good to work for they have refused to become involved in any disputes between employees and the parking firm, the typical defence from employees in this position is that we pay a monthly fee and the car park is not open to the public so the parking firm aren’t at a loss for business.

The contravention is simply not displaying the permit.

Before I make a decision to pay or fight I’ve been considering some points, I have to provide my car details to my company so that these are then passed to the parking company.
Unfortunately the parking company doesn’t check to see if the car is a permit holder and contact my company to give a one off warning, they just issue a ticket.
Could it be argued that the cost of the fine £60/£100 is unreasonable as they already hold the information necessary to confirm I’m entitled to park there?

I know the permit makes it easier for them than checking with HQ/Base/Office and I would have no issue paying a small fee but I don’t think it costs £60 to ring back to the office.

Looking for thoughts and advice, parking charge as follows.
Feel free to ask questions, mock my forgetfulness etc

Edited by ZOLLAR on Sunday 30th September 10:26

[DrDeAtH]

I think your permit blew off the dashboard into the footwell when you closed the door..

[ZOLLAR]

DrDeAtH said:

I think your permit blew off the dashboard into the footwell when you closed the door..

Well yes of course
That has happened many times before actually, however I've been lucky to notice

I'm not sure how well that would stand up!

[PurpleMoonlight]

If I had paid the PPC to park, and they knew my registration through the issue of a permit to park, I wouldn't be inclined to pay their charge.

It's clearly a penalty and not any form of loss or charge for excess stay.

[Sheepshanks]

ZOLLAR said:

...the car park is solely for the use of the employees for which we pay around £50 per month.
We’re issued with a parking permit which is to be displayed in the windscreen.

Is access to the car park restricted? I suppose you could console yourself that without enforcement of the permits it would make parking there much more difficult.

I'd be furious (with everybody) about getting the ticket, but being pragmatic for a moment it's going to cause a lot more than £60 worth of hassle to fight it. If you can stand a CCJ on your credit file for 6 years then just ignore it.

[ZOLLAR]

Sheepshanks said:

ZOLLAR said:

...the car park is solely for the use of the employees for which we pay around £50 per month.
We’re issued with a parking permit which is to be displayed in the windscreen.

Is access to the car park restricted? I suppose you could console yourself that without enforcement of the permits it would make parking there much more difficult.

I'd be furious (with everybody) about getting the ticket, but being pragmatic for a moment it's going to cause a lot more than £60 worth of hassle to fight it. If you can stand a CCJ on your credit file for 6 years then just ignore it.

Certainly don't want a CCJ, I'm considering my options really first.
Another colleague is a few steps ahead of me and is heading to court probably in the next couple of months over it.

The car park isn't restricted, it just has a sign that says "<company name> employees only", however where the car park is you wouldn't get joe public going in there anyway.

Annoyingly though we can't just ignore the ticket as the parking firm raise it with our company and they may consider it under disciplinary action (so I'm told), two way standards in my opinion so certainly a point I'll be discussing Monday when I speak to the department that deals with the parking firm.

[7795]

Very annoying. If it were me I’d pay the ticket, stick the pass to the car interior at a suitable spot and move on. The hassle free/effort involved equation would be invoked...

[hutchst]

Sheepshanks said:

Is access to the car park restricted? I suppose you could console yourself that without enforcement of the permits it would make parking there much more difficult.

I'd be furious (with everybody) about getting the ticket, but being pragmatic for a moment it's going to cause a lot more than £60 worth of hassle to fight it. If you can stand a CCJ on your credit file for 6 years then just ignore it.

Why would he get a CCJ if he paid up straight away if he loses in court?

[Sheepshanks]

ZOLLAR said:

Annoyingly though we can't just ignore the ticket as the parking firm raise it with our company and they may consider it under disciplinary action (so I'm told), two way standards in my opinion so certainly a point I'll be discussing Monday when I speak to the department that deals with the parking firm.

Be interesting to know who the land-owner is. I know you said earlier you thought it was the parking company, but that's not normally the case.

It might be your employer, so they should be able to get it cancelled, although likely more difficult if owned by someone else. It's probably one of those things where if you're senior, or your face fits, it'll get cancelled. Everyone else has to pay.

[ZOLLAR]

Sheepshanks said:

ZOLLAR said:

Annoyingly though we can't just ignore the ticket as the parking firm raise it with our company and they may consider it under disciplinary action (so I'm told), two way standards in my opinion so certainly a point I'll be discussing Monday when I speak to the department that deals with the parking firm.

Be interesting to know who the land-owner is. I know you said earlier you thought it was the parking company, but that's not normally the case.

It might be your employer, so they should be able to get it cancelled, although likely more difficult if owned by someone else. It's probably one of those things where if you're senior, or your face fits, it'll get cancelled. Everyone else has to pay.

I know the company doesn't own it, I am pretty sure the parking company own it as they owned a couple of other car parks close by that they sold to a university.

The current car park has an on-going planning application to turn it into a multi storey so if needs be I could get the land owners details from there but I don't think that will help much.

My best prospect for not paying I think is to argue my point, I'm considering getting a confirmation of what data is held by the parking company (I'm 100% they have the registration but will obtain documents to confirm this if it does end up in court) and also see what pressure I can put on my company.

I've worked here for a long time and our CEO has open communication links for staff to contact him directly for feedback on company practices including staffing etc, It's almost guaranteed he doesn't know the minute details of situations like this as our site is based in different city to his office.
No harm in dropping him an email (routed via his PA).

[Sheepshanks]

ZOLLAR said:

I've worked here for a long time and our CEO has open communication links for staff to contact him directly for feedback on company practices including staffing etc, It's almost guaranteed he doesn't know the minute details of situations like this as our site is based in different city to his office.
No harm in dropping him an email (routed via his PA).

Honestly - I don't think I'd want to stick my head over the parapet for something like this. I did it when I got stuffed with a £500 private medical bill which was the company's fault for giving us the wrong guidance. But not for £60, unless you were a manager and could raise it on behalf of disgruntled staff members etc.

Edited to correct several typos.

Edited by Sheepshanks on Sunday 30th September 14:24

[ZOLLAR]

Sheepshanks said:

ZOLLAR said:

I've worked here for a long time and our CEO has open communication links for staff to contact him directly for feedback on company practices including staffing etc, It's almost guaranteed he doesn't know the minute details of situations like this as our site is based in different city to his office.
No harm in dropping him an email (routed via his PA).

Honestly - I don't think I'd want to stick my head over the parapet for something like this. I did it when I got stuffed with a £500 private medical which was the companies fault for giving us the wrong guidance. But not for £60, unless you were a manger and could raise is on behalf of disgruntled staff members etc.

Luckily the way it's structured is that it doesn't need be a manager, I just don't think anyone has pushed this internally far enough, most just go to court mainly because they are all familiar with court processes (Insurance company)

I work in Fraud and know enough people to kick up a fuss (hopefully) or at the very least draw attention to something that needs proper guidance and decisions.
The company is very big on being a "Great place to work for" so matters like this are hopefully taken serious.

[silverfoxcc]

It is very doubtful that the PPC own the csr park.

Please put this up on Pepipoo so they can see the wholw of the notice and give them dates etc

HOPEFULLY you havent contacted the OPPC yet, but sll it not lost if you have

Pepipoo know all about these ticketd and even after 6yrs they still dont get the legal and requried wording correct ( see Beckham for the checking the small print of la) only you dont have to pay millions out to make this go away

[ZOLLAR]

silverfoxcc said:

It is very doubtful that the PPC own the csr park.

Please put this up on Pepipoo so they can see the wholw of the notice and give them dates etc

HOPEFULLY you havent contacted the OPPC yet, but sll it not lost if you have

Pepipoo know all about these ticketd and even after 6yrs they still dont get the legal and requried wording correct ( see Beckham for the checking the small print of la) only you dont have to pay millions out to make this go away

I haven't made any contact yet, I haven't even logged into the online portal to view the pictures as I'm sure if needed they could note someone has logged in so had successfully received the PCN

I'll have a look at Pepipoo later, although I find the site confusing, too many "new posters read this, post that" etc but I suppose they must get the same questions over and over again.

[Sheepshanks]

ZOLLAR said:

I'll have a look at Pepipoo later, although I find the site confusing, too many "new posters read this, post that" etc but I suppose they must get the same questions over and over again.

There is some suggestion that the wording that company uses isn't compliant, but the thread I looked at was a few years old so likely they'll have changed it. Looks like you got the notice in time too.

On what basis did some of your collegues prevail? If there's anything specific that you could cite then that might encourage the parking company to file it under "too much hassle".

[markjmd]

I would start by looking very carefully at the signage and its wording in the car park (and make sure you take a picture of it asap too, in case it gets changed at a later date). Our own office car park used to be managed by a similar set of wombles, despite there being nothing of the remotest possible interest to non-legitimate visitors anywhere in the vicinity of the business park (it was easily a 15 minute walk to the nearest shop, and a half hour to the station), but most PCNs issued were dismissed when appealed due to the signs not specifically stating that permits had to be displayed. They simply said 'authorized persons only are allowed to park', which of course everyone who worked for the company was.

[Pica-Pica]

I assume the charge is failure to display, not a failure to pay (you pay £50 a month).

You could try a reply, ‘ have a permit so I have paid’. Quote car reg and permit number. Say that you assume that clears everything up, and that you consider the matter closed in two weeks from the letter you send.

I would not believe they would pursue if you give them those details. I may be totally wrong of course, but would they really pursue it to court?

[silverfoxcc]

Zollar

The reason for' the read this read that' is

1) to get you to load the pics up so they can read it both sides all of it and reduct any personal info and location the PPC read that forum as well!!

2) they dont do your defence for you, they do expect you to look at other case ,BUT they will help you write it correctly so a win is normally 90% certain., and amend it where necesaay

3) check the post count trusted names to look for are nosterfuru hcanderson, incandescent schoolrum mum Gan, Lynnzer, dancing dad

4) they do like a one thread post, so if you see one similar dont add to it, but start a new one

[ZOLLAR]

Sheepshanks said:

ZOLLAR said:

I'll have a look at Pepipoo later, although I find the site confusing, too many "new posters read this, post that" etc but I suppose they must get the same questions over and over again.

There is some suggestion that the wording that company uses isn't compliant, but the thread I looked at was a few years old so likely they'll have changed it. Looks like you got the notice in time too.

On what basis did some of your collegues prevail? If there's anything specific that you could cite then that might encourage the parking company to file it under "too much hassle".

I've only managed to speak to one of the successful ones but they were more luck of an understanding ear than concrete evidence, I need to speak to another tomorrow.

How's this for thoughts, if I can get confirmation that the parking company hold my registration (it's still new but I believe reg plates fall as data under pseudonymisation of GDPR) then I could possibly argue they have not used my data correctly and have no valid reason to hold it, it's a long shot and a crude understanding of it but I'm hoping that pushes it into "Too much hassle" pile.

For those with further understanding feel free to chip in and call me a plum or point me in the right direction with that idea.

[ZOLLAR]

Pica-Pica said:

I assume the charge is failure to display, not a failure to pay (you pay £50 a month).

You could try a reply, ‘ have a permit so I have paid’. Quote car reg and permit number. Say that you assume that clears everything up, and that you consider the matter closed in two weeks from the letter you send.

I would not believe they would pursue if you give them those details. I may be totally wrong of course, but would they really pursue it to court?

That's what everyone prior to me has done, they reject every appeal (including my colleague I mentioned earlier who's a few steps ahead of me in this process)
They have pursued it to court in all cases as far as I'm aware, it's difficult as most info of other cases comes as hearsay and it can be hard to track down everyone who has been!