Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: XL297 on September 13, 2024, 05:49:47 pm
-
The driver was apparently familiar with this area and had used this car park many times before and had seen signposts but not studied them and had used the car park times in the past. The driver was aware there were signs but not aware of the message those signs conveyed. After receiving the letter and investigating the driver made themselves aware of the content of the signs.
If, in similar circumstances the registered keeper is in receipt of a letter worded in this way, and The letter requests the amount is paid or the driver is identified, it doesn't state what the registered keeper should do if they are unable to identify the driver.
Could an appeal be made on that there is no liability for the registered keeper and there is no allowance should the registered keeper be unable to identify the driver?
Could the counter argument be made that "request" is synonymous with "invite", despite not actually requesting the registered keeper pay if the driver is unable to be identified?
You didn't answer the question... "Was the driver aware that they had entered private land that is controlled by a private parking company? Did the driver know that the land was private? Simply stating that the driver was aware of some signs but didn't bother to read them means nothing.
A contract between the driver and the PPC is "by conduct" whether they bother to read the signs or not. Knowing that there are signs but not reading them does not mean that no contract exists.
Clutching at straws is not going to really help. Either the NtK is fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, in which case the Keeper is liable if the driver remains unknown or else only the driver can be liable.
If the Keeper is unable to identify the driver would be a stupid comment to make. The Keeper can decline to identify the driver. Don't confuse the two.
-
For a single ticket, even if you lost, the costs are seldom above £200. They can claim the £100 charge, the hearing fee (£35 I think), legal rep fees (£50 I think), plus interest. They'll try to add on £70 debt collector fees but they can usually be successfully challenged.
As noted above, County Court cases don't set precedent so of little major impact either way
-
For clarity, my point is not necessarily giving an opinion either way on the validity of the argument, and more to the fact that County Court can be rather unpredictable (when they actually bother seeing it through to a hearing), especially where we've not any previous successes or failures to judge on.
This isn't intended to put you off challenging it OP, if you feel so inclined, just don't want to imply any guarantees that we cannot provide.
What would be the financial implications be, worst case scenario if I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, went to court using this to argue my case? Would it be prohibitively expensive if it went against me? If the argument was succesful, would it be useful to others in a similar situation or would it just require the company to rewrite of the letter to prevent other registered keepers using the same argument?
-
Was the driver aware that they had entered private land that controlled by a private parking company? If not, why not? If yes, why did the driver not read the signs with the terms and conditions of parking?
The only flaw in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) I can find is the following:
PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i):
This section requires that the NtK must include an "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the outstanding parking charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. This is a critical point for the Notice to Keeper's compliance under PoFA if the parking operator wishes to hold the registered keeper liable.
Assessing the NtK:
Looking at the wording on the NtK:
Wording on the Keeper’s Liability:
The notice states: “If you were not the driver of the vehicle, you should notify us (in writing using the form attached or online) of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
It also states: "The Driver of the above vehicle is now liable for a Parking Charge for the above amount."
Invitation to Pay:
The notice requests payment from the keeper if the charge remains unpaid.
However, it does not appear to explicitly "invite" the keeper to pay the charge if the driver does not, nor does it clearly explain that the keeper can pay the charge to settle the matter.
Conclusion:
The wording does not seem to comply with PoFA 2012 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) because it requests the keeper to provide driver details but does not use the proper language to "invite" the keeper to either provide the driver's information or pay the charge themselves.
The key element missing is the proper "invitation" wording to the keeper, which is crucial under PoFA for establishing liability for the parking charge.
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the law does not require that the exact word "invite" be used, but it does require that the NtK clearly conveys an "invitation" to the keeper to pay the charge. The intention behind this section is to offer the keeper a choice: either pay the parking charge or provide the name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
The key requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are:
Invitation to Pay: The NtK must invite the keeper to pay the parking charge if they do not know the identity of the driver.
Alternative: The NtK must also invite the keeper to provide the name and address of the driver if they were not the driver.
Does the wording need to explicitly say "invite"? No, the word "invite" does not need to be used verbatim, but the wording must clearly communicate that the keeper has the option to pay the charge. The language should be framed as a choice for the keeper, not a demand or a request that implies only the driver is liable, with no option for the keeper to resolve the matter by paying.
Implied invitation vs explicit invitation:
If the wording implies that the keeper can pay the charge but does not clearly offer them the choice, it does not fully satisfy the requirement. To be compliant, the notice should either explicitly "invite" the keeper to pay or clearly communicate that the keeper can resolve the matter by making the payment if they do not provide driver details. If the wording feels like a demand or is unclear, it could be deemed non-compliant.
Example of compliant wording:
"AS the keeper, you are invited to (i) pay the outstanding parking charge or, (ii) if you were not the driver, provide the name and serviceable address of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention."
Example of non-compliant wording:
"We request that you provide the driver's details or pay the outstanding amount." (This might not sufficiently emphasise the invitation to the keeper and instead sounds more like a demand.)
In the case of your NtK:
If the NtK requests information from the keeper but does not clearly invite them to pay the charge in the event they do not know or decline to identify the driver, then it is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). A simple request for payment is not be sufficient to meet the legal standard of an "invitation."
Conclusion:
While the word "invite" itself is not mandatory, the wording must clearly communicate that the keeper is offered the choice to pay the parking charge or provide driver details. If the wording in the NtK does not give the keeper this clear option, it could be argued that it does not comply with PoFA and, therefore, keeper liability may not be properly established.
The driver was apparently familiar with this area and had used this car park many times before and had seen signposts but not studied them and had used the car park times in the past. The driver was aware there were signs but not aware of the message those signs conveyed. After receiving the letter and investigating the driver made themselves aware of the content of the signs.
If, in similar circumstances the registered keeper is in receipt of a letter worded in this way, and The letter requests the amount is paid or the driver is identified, it doesn't state what the registered keeper should do if they are unable to identify the driver.
Could an appeal be made on that there is no liability for the registered keeper and there is no allowance should the registered keeper be unable to identify the driver?
Could the counter argument be made that "request" is synonymous with "invite", despite not actually requesting the registered keeper pay if the driver is unable to be identified?
-
I'm aware of that, but where we see an argument consistently work or fail at various courts in front of various judges, it can often serve as a decent indicator.
-
Nothing previously decided in the county court has any bearing on a current case unless it has been successfully appealed, in which case it become "persuasive" or appealed in a higher court, where it become "binding".
-
For clarity, my point is not necessarily giving an opinion either way on the validity of the argument, and more to the fact that County Court can be rather unpredictable (when they actually bother seeing it through to a hearing), especially where we've not any previous successes or failures to judge on.
This isn't intended to put you off challenging it OP, if you feel so inclined, just don't want to imply any guarantees that we cannot provide.
-
I have not tested them in court but I have tested them with a long serving district judge who agreed that if they presented in that way, they would form a valid defence. None of my cases have ever reached a hearing as they have all be discontinued or struck out before any hearing.
-
Just so you're going into this with your eyes open, this being an IPC member, you'd probably need to take the above argument to court (if Countrywide decided to take it that far).
I'm not aware of any examples where such an argument has been tested in court, b789 might be.
-
Was the driver aware that they had entered private land that controlled by a private parking company? If not, why not? If yes, why did the driver not read the signs with the terms and conditions of parking?
The only flaw in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) I can find is the following:
PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i):
This section requires that the NtK must include an "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the outstanding parking charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. This is a critical point for the Notice to Keeper's compliance under PoFA if the parking operator wishes to hold the registered keeper liable.
Assessing the NtK:
Looking at the wording on the NtK:
Wording on the Keeper’s Liability:
The notice states: “If you were not the driver of the vehicle, you should notify us (in writing using the form attached or online) of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
It also states: "The Driver of the above vehicle is now liable for a Parking Charge for the above amount."
Invitation to Pay:
The notice requests payment from the keeper if the charge remains unpaid.
However, it does not appear to explicitly "invite" the keeper to pay the charge if the driver does not, nor does it clearly explain that the keeper can pay the charge to settle the matter.
Conclusion:
The wording does not seem to comply with PoFA 2012 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) because it requests the keeper to provide driver details but does not use the proper language to "invite" the keeper to either provide the driver's information or pay the charge themselves.
The key element missing is the proper "invitation" wording to the keeper, which is crucial under PoFA for establishing liability for the parking charge.
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the law does not require that the exact word "invite" be used, but it does require that the NtK clearly conveys an "invitation" to the keeper to pay the charge. The intention behind this section is to offer the keeper a choice: either pay the parking charge or provide the name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
The key requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are:
Invitation to Pay: The NtK must invite the keeper to pay the parking charge if they do not know the identity of the driver.
Alternative: The NtK must also invite the keeper to provide the name and address of the driver if they were not the driver.
Does the wording need to explicitly say "invite"? No, the word "invite" does not need to be used verbatim, but the wording must clearly communicate that the keeper has the option to pay the charge. The language should be framed as a choice for the keeper, not a demand or a request that implies only the driver is liable, with no option for the keeper to resolve the matter by paying.
Implied invitation vs explicit invitation:
If the wording implies that the keeper can pay the charge but does not clearly offer them the choice, it does not fully satisfy the requirement. To be compliant, the notice should either explicitly "invite" the keeper to pay or clearly communicate that the keeper can resolve the matter by making the payment if they do not provide driver details. If the wording feels like a demand or is unclear, it could be deemed non-compliant.
Example of compliant wording:
"AS the keeper, you are invited to (i) pay the outstanding parking charge or, (ii) if you were not the driver, provide the name and serviceable address of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention."
Example of non-compliant wording:
"We request that you provide the driver's details or pay the outstanding amount." (This might not sufficiently emphasise the invitation to the keeper and instead sounds more like a demand.)
In the case of your NtK:
If the NtK requests information from the keeper but does not clearly invite them to pay the charge in the event they do not know or decline to identify the driver, then it is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). A simple request for payment is not be sufficient to meet the legal standard of an "invitation."
Conclusion:
While the word "invite" itself is not mandatory, the wording must clearly communicate that the keeper is offered the choice to pay the parking charge or provide driver details. If the wording in the NtK does not give the keeper this clear option, it could be argued that it does not comply with PoFA and, therefore, keeper liability may not be properly established.
-
The driver had just had the vehicle valeted and wasn't happy with the valet service, whilst driving to another location the driver pulled into a local car park and proceeded to take photographs of the condition of the vehicle. -
After taking the photos the driver left the car park. -
On the 12th of September I, the registered keeper of the vehicle received a parking charge notice through the post. -
Apologies for the formatting and rather large pictures - I tried to sort it, but failed.
-----------
(https://i.imgur.com/u72JY11.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WZ0ZnXM.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bo0F9fP.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/46PJtuy.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lJWrXb6.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DqCC3rO.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/svjcLXl.png)