Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: straycat on May 23, 2025, 12:04:27 pm

Title: Re: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: b789 on May 23, 2025, 06:26:10 pm: In order for the operator to be able to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper, the notice MUST fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA paragraph 9(2). There are 10 sub-paragraphs that list all these requirements. One of them is paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) which states that the Notice MUST:

Quote
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; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Now let's take this element:

"...and invite the keeper—to pay the unpaid parking charges"

If you read the notice carefully, you will see that the notice only says that the Keeper must pay the outstanding amount if they were the driver or, if they were not, provide the drivers details and pass on the notice.

As there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver and they only tell the Keeper to pay if they were the driver, then this does not satisfy the requirement for there notice to "invite" the Keeper to pay it, irrespective of whether they were the driver or not.

As there is no explicit invitation (or any synonym of the word) to the Keeper to pay the charge, the requirement for the notice to invite the Keeper to pay it has not been met. Just like someone cannot be mostly or even substantially pregnant. They either are or they aren't, the Notice cannot be mostly or even substantially PoFA compliant. It's a binary issue. It either is or it isn't POFA compliant. In this case it isn't.

Not that you'd convince a thicko POPLA assessor of that level of detail. However, if it ever got as far as a court hearing in a claim (highly unlikely) a judge would take a different view and I have successfully argued this with a district judge.

There is also the issue that the notice only mentions "We, the creditor" without identifying if "We" is the landowner or just the operator. Without specifically identifying the creditor, the notice is in breach of PoFA 9(2)(h).

These are all technicalities that would only have real effect in court, not with the farce that is POPLA.
Title: Re: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: straycat on May 23, 2025, 05:45:47 pm: Thanks for this. Jeff is indeed the keeper, not the driver. He won't be identifying the driver.

Apologies for my ignorance, could I ask how the PCN is not PoFA compliant? I think this might the strongest argument to go with for an inevitable appeal (if a complaint to the landowner is unsuccessful...)

For now, I guess we try and find out who the landlord is...
Title: Re: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: b789 on May 23, 2025, 04:47:00 pm: Is "Jeff" the Keeper of the vehicle? Only the Keeper of the vehicle can respond to the Notice to Keeper (NtK), which is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. This means that only the driver can be liable for the charge and Minster Baywatch have no idea who that is, unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

If "Jeff" is the Keeper, he must only refer to the driver in the third person. If "Jeff" is not the Keeper, then the Keeper must still only refer to the driver in the third person.

Because the NtK is not PoFA compliant, they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. As the driver and the Keeper are two separate legal entities and they are not allowed to infer to assume that the Keeper must also be the driver, they have nowhere to go with this.

You also have the added fact that the signage is not adequate, especially if the entrance sign informing users of the recent changes in terms is not visible. However, the photo of the entrance sign, taken from the kerbside before turning in to the left does not show the updates sign, I'm pretty sure that if "Jeff" took that photo from the position of the driver, it would be a different matter.

Not that the Keeper shouldn't try that argument, but it is a bit weak methinks.

The Keeper should find out who the landowner or their managing agent is and get them to cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: jfollows on May 23, 2025, 04:46:05 pm: Ah, so that’s a “no” then!
Title: Re: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: b789 on May 23, 2025, 04:32:39 pm: Quote from: jfollows on May 23, 2025, 01:48:37 pm
Is https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf applicable?
Quote
3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

(https://i.imgur.com/GUUMMzp.jpeg)
Title: Re: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: jfollows on May 23, 2025, 01:48:37 pm: Is https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf applicable?
Quote
3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.
Title: Stung by formerly free car park
Post by: straycat on May 23, 2025, 12:04:27 pm: Hi all,

In a bit of a pickle.

One of my friends, Jeff, sometimes spends a few hours studying in Caffe Nero and the adjacent library in Milton Keynes Kingston.

A few weeks ago, Jeff did parked in the car park right next to the library (which allows for free, unlimited parking).

It was only on his return to his vehicle around 4.5 hours later that he realised new signs have been erected restricting parking to 4 hours.

Images of PCN and signage below. As he entered the car park, there was no signage when turning in (see image 4). More images of car park here: https://imgur.com/a/1rBmnFG

Now he's received this fine in the post...and is wondering how he can appeal, considering that Minster Baywatch have not breached the PPSCoP mandate that 28 days for payment must be counted from the date of receipt, not issue.

He is still considering appealing on grounds of insufficient signage...and has complained to Caffe Nero instore and over the phone to no avail (they claim because it's part of a retail park, they have no relationship with the third party PPC)

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[attachment deleted by admin]