Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: idealist9843 on December 01, 2025, 11:46:49 am
-
Do you really think they care? Just get on with it!
-
I absolutely understand what you are saying but for them to use the information from my first appeal it would require them to explicitly admit that they are knowingly unlawfully double charging me.
-
But ALL NtKs say that. Once you appeal and they dig a bit deeper, your admitting that you were the driver in the first PCN will come to light. Feel free to try and include no Keeper liability but it may come back to haunt you.
-
Sorry I didn't mean to exasperate you but they literally say they don't know the name of the driver
-
I give in... ::)
Anyone else care to try and explain about templates/boilerplate text?
-
Just to clarify, I have not been told I am the driver.
The PCN states "At the time of this notice we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and as the registered keeper of the vehicle..."
So I think it is worth putting in about PoFA and if they say well we know it was you driving from this other PCN we served you then that is them explicitly admitting to unlawful double charging surely?
Thanks for all the help so far, should I keep the PoFA bit in given they have said they don't know the driver?
-
OK here is my draft for the initial contact:
This Parking Charge Notice was served outside the 14-day statutory deadline required for keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, keeper liability cannot arise. Further, if this site is situated on railway land, it is in any event not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA, and keeper liability is expressly excluded regardless of service dates. In either case, the Operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper. Accordingly, this charge must be cancelled or, in the alternative, you must issue a POPLA verification code.
But you've already been told that because the driver is identified, they are not relying on PoFA, whether they could or not. The DRIVER is ALWAYS the liable party. You have admitted to being the driver so any waffle about PoFA and Keeper liability is irrelevant. The driver is liable. you, the Keeper, admitted to being the driver. The fact that you are the Keeper matters not one iota once you threw away that defence.
Just use the following as your initial appeal to the second PCN:
This Parking Charge Notice relates to the same single continuous period of parking as PCN [first PCN number] at [location] on [date]. Your own ANPR entry and exit times on this notice correspond with the timestamp of the photographic evidence used for the earlier PCN. There was only one uninterrupted stay in the car park, so only one parking contract could possibly arise from that visit.
Issuing a second Parking Charge Notice for the same continuous period of parking – first alleging “parking outside a marked bay” and now “non-payment” – is an attempt to recover multiple contractual charges for a single parking event. This is unfair, punitive and contrary to the requirements of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which requires parking operators to act proportionately and not to over-penalise motorists.
This second notice was also issued 22 days after the parking event, and only after an appeal had already been lodged regarding the first PCN. The timing and duplication of charges strongly suggest an unreasonable attempt at double recovery rather than any genuine effort to manage parking.
In light of the above, this second Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled. If you refuse to cancel it, you are required to treat this as a formal appeal and either cancel the charge or issue a POPLA verification code so that the matter can be referred to supposed independent adjudication.
-
OK here is my draft for the initial contact:
This Parking Charge Notice was served outside the 14-day statutory deadline required for keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, keeper liability cannot arise. Further, if this site is situated on railway land, it is in any event not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA, and keeper liability is expressly excluded regardless of service dates. In either case, the Operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper. Accordingly, this charge must be cancelled or, in the alternative, you must issue a POPLA verification code.
Additionally, the Operator has issued two Parking Charge Notices in respect of the same single continuous period of parking. Only one parking contract can arise from one uninterrupted stay. The attempt to pursue multiple contractual charges for a single parking event constitutes unlawful double recovery and an abuse of process, and is contrary to the BPA Code of Practice requirement that enforcement be fair and proportionate. On this basis, both Parking Charge Notices must be cancelled. Should you reject this appeal in respect of either notice, you are required to issue a POPLA verification code without delay.
-
In answer to your questions: because you ticked that you were the driver on the first NCP PCN for this car and car park, they can realistically rely on that for the later one as well. Trying now to suggest it was some other driver for the same sort of visit simply won’t be credible.
For the same reason, you should not tell them to “send it to the unknown driver” on the new PCN, as that contradicts what you have already told them and would come across as untruthful.
As for the double charging point, yes, POPLA and courts generally do take a dim view of operators issuing more than one PCN for a single continuous parking event. POPLA has allowed appeals where multiple PCNs were raised for one stay, and a judge is likely to regard two charges for one period of parking as excessive and unfair. It is well worth raising that now in your response to the third PCN and, if your POPLA appeals are still live, adding a short comment into each POPLA case to explain that NCP are also trying to issue a second PCN for the same parking period.
-
Well when I received the first PCN for parking outside a marked bay I did tick I was the driver but can they use that on a second PCN for the same continuous period of parking?
Also any thoughts on the unlawful double charging. Should I just say send it to the unknown driver for now or do I mention it in the initial contact?
As I understand things PoPLa and the courts take a dim view of double charging, is that correct?
-
Before any assistance can be offered, in your initial appeals, has the driver been identified? Yes, we and NCP know you are the registered Keeper, but no one knows who the driver is unless you blabbed it to them, inadvertently or otherwise, when you appealed.
The reason that is VERY important, is because if the location is land that is owned by a Train Operating Company (TOC) or Network Rail, then it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA which means that as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.
So, have you proverbially shot yourself in the foot by identifying the driver?
-
I don't know
Here is the sign: https://maps.app.goo.gl/49UVwynYjG81zj4P8
Let me know where to move this if needed.
Thanks
-
"Station Car Park" or is it not part of the Station?
It says private land.
-
I received 2 PCNs from NCP, 1 week apart, for parking outside a marked bay in a station car-park (I parked in the car park on 2 separate occasions 1 week apart). I've appealed both of these to NCP, which they rejected (although gave me a £20 payment goodwill gesture for the second one). I've appealed both of these to PoPLa on the basis of poor signage and some other points.
I have now received a second PCN for the same period of parking as one of the outside of marked bay PCNs for non payment (I wasn't having a great day). The date of sending on the PCN is 22 days after the period of parking. The PCN gives entry and exit times to the car park and this time overlaps the timestamp on the photo used as evidence of my car parked outside the bay. So they are trying to collect 2 penalty charges for one continuous period of parking. I believe this is called unlawful double charging.
The third PCN differs subtly from the first two, the shade of yellow is different, printing quality is substantially different and the appeal address is www.gapparking.co.uk rather than www.ncp.co.uk. Formatting is strange and the pay by date is unfilled. It was sent on the date I filed my first appeal with PoPLa.
IIRC the website for appealing the charge asks "are you the driver? Yes/No" with no option to say the 14 days has elapsed.
How should I proceed?