on 12 Aug, 2025 12:07 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
on 15 Jul, 2025 09:12 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
Quote from: nothavingthis on 10 Jul, 2025 12:13Hi,Apologies, in the past i had not disclosed the pcn number and registration and was able to get the assistance needed from the rest of the letter, hence i thought it was not absolutely necessary. I have re-attached the PCN again showing the required details now.Thank you for providing the link to the guide of how to post such cases, much appreciated.Quote from: jfollows on 09 Jul, 2025 11:34Yet you continue to obscure the information requested more than once which we need to be able to help you? Do you actually read posts from other people? Did you read https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/ ?
on 10 Jul, 2025 12:13 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
on 09 Jul, 2025 11:06 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
on 26 Jun, 2025 12:51 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
on 24 Jun, 2025 21:02 in Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on)
on 23 Mar, 2025 11:16 in Private parking tickets
Quote from: b789 on 16 Mar, 2025 20:41@jfollows, there are no "fines" involved in civil litigation. The county court cannot and will not impose any "fine" as this has nothing to do with statutory law and penalties.If this ever gets to court and all the way to a hearing (unlikely), the county court is simply the ultimate dispute resolution service. The operator (the claimant) says you owe them a debt. You say you don't. A judge will hear the arguments of both sides and based on the facts, will decide whether you owe the debt or not. It is as simple as that. Even if you were to be unsuccessful, it is highly likely that you would pay less than the amount claimed, because extra costs and damages are not allowed in the small claims track of the county court. That is why it is known as the "small claims" court.So, court in this sense is nothing to do with criminal law. That is for higher courts such as the magistrates court, high court and above. This is simply a way to settle claims over an alleged debt and you don't have a debt until a judge says you do.For anyone with an overactive imagination and thoughts about the Old Bailey, wigs and gowns, here is a short video to explain how a small-claims hearing is conducted in the county court:https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
on 16 Mar, 2025 20:18 in Private parking tickets
on 06 Mar, 2025 11:56 in Private parking tickets
on 06 Mar, 2025 11:53 in Private parking tickets
on 20 Feb, 2025 12:09 in Private parking tickets
on 20 Nov, 2024 16:08 in Private parking tickets
Quote from: b789 on 20 Nov, 2024 13:16Have you had a response from Mr Appiah yet?Here is a more detailed POPLA appeal based on your circumstances:QuotePOPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC)Grounds for Appeal1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) Was Premature.2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the Driver.4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of Practice.5. No Evidence of Landholder Authority.1. The Windscreen Note Constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) Under PoFA, and the NtK Was Premature. The Windscreen Note Was Presented as a Notice to Driver (NtD)The document left on the vehicle windscreen was enclosed in a yellow plastic envelope marked “Parking Charge Notice”, giving the appearance of a formal NtD. The design, language, and presentation of this document were clearly intended to mimic an official NtD, fulfilling the role of an NtD for all practical purposes.
By leaving this document on the vehicle, UKPC initiated the procedural process described in Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 of PoFA, which requires operators to wait a minimum of 28 days before serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).UKPC Cannot Circumvent PoFA by Issuing an Improper NtD. If UKPC claims the windscreen note was not a valid NtD, they are effectively admitting to issuing a non-compliant notice.This non-compliance cannot exempt them from PoFA requirements. UKPC cannot rely on the windscreen note as evidence of a contravention while simultaneously denying its status as an NtD to circumvent the 28-day timeline mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4).Premature NtKUKPC issued the NtK only two days after leaving the windscreen note. This premature issuance violates PoFA, rendering the NtK invalid.2. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) Fails to Comply with PoFATo transfer liability to the registered keeper, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKPC’s NtK fails to meet the mandatory requirements, rendering it invalid.Omission of Mandatory InformationSchedule 4, Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA specifies the information that must be included in the NtK. UKPC’s NtK omits a key detail, the period of parking to which the charge relates. Without this information, the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA, and the operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.PoFA specifically states, irrespective of whether under paragraph 8 or 9 that the notice MUST: "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates." An NtK, whether issued under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA is required to fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Act. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient.3. UKPC Has Not Proven That the Individual Being Pursued Was the DriverUKPC has not identified the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and instead relies on assumptions that the registered keeper was the driver.Legal RequirementsSchedule 4 of PoFA allows liability to be transferred to the registered keeper only if the operator fully complies with ALL its requirements. UKPC has provided no evidence, to establish the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.Relevant Legal PrecedentIn VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the court considered the issue of driver identification. From paragraph 31 onwards, it was emphasised that:• A parking operator must present substantive evidence to demonstrate who the driver was at the time of the alleged contravention.• Liability cannot simply be presumed based on the registered keeper’s details or their correspondence.This case reinforces that unless the operator identifies the driver, they cannot hold anyone liable as the driver unless PoFA's strict conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper are met. In this case, UKPC has failed to provide any such evidence, relying solely on the registered keeper’s details to pursue this charge.4. Inadequate Signage Breaching the BPA Code of PracticeUKPC’s signage at the site fails to meet the standards set by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 19.Poor Visibility and ClarityThe signs were either obscured, too small, or positioned in a way that made them unreadable. Key parking terms were not clearly communicated, leading to confusion.Failure to Form a ContractThe lack of clear, prominent, and legible signage means no contract was formed between the driver and UKPC. This invalidates the parking charge.5. No Evidence of Landholder AuthorityUKPC is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, consideration periods, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreementConclusionIn light of the above points, this Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. UKPC has failed to:• Adhere to the procedural requirements of PoFA regarding Notices to Driver and Keeper.• Issue a Notice to Keeper that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).• Establish who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.• Provide clear and adequate signage in line with BPA guidelines.• Demonstrate their authority to operate on the land in question.I request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct UKPC to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
on 20 Nov, 2024 11:55 in Private parking tickets
on 18 Nov, 2024 22:36 in Private parking tickets
on 18 Nov, 2024 22:15 in Private parking tickets