Free Traffic Legal Advice

The following submission to POPLA was made by operator CUP on 28/02.

RK responded to POPLA on 07/02 that they never received original NtK as alleged, only the reminder a month later. And that if they wanted to enforce parking in that particular area they should have painted and delineated clear parking bays. FYI

Operator Name
Close Unit Protection - EW
Operator Case Summary
PCN Details •   Parking Operator:       CUP Enforcement •   PCN number:         34141 •   Method of issue:      PoFA Notice to Keeper          •   VRM:                            •   Date of contravention:    05/11/2024 •   Date notice sent:      08/11/2024 •   Location:          481 Green Lanes •   Reason for issue:       Unauthorised parking/not on the white list. Parking Policy: CUP Enforcement has an agreement in place with their client, the proprietor of the location. A copy has been enclosed in the latter part of the evidence pack, along with the site map. This is a rolling contract and is currently valid. The parking area is private property and is monitored by cameras. Any vehicles found parked on the private property unauthorised/not on the white list, and in breach of the T&Cs as stated in the car park signage will incur a charge. Case Summary ●   The vehicle was observed parked unauthorised and unlisted on 05/11/2024 at the site. Photographic evidence was captured on the day. The officer checked the list of allowed vehicles for the private land and the vehicle was unauthorised and not listed. ●   As the vehicle was parked in breach of the parking terms and conditions, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle by post on 08/11/2024 ●   A reminder was issued on 09/12/2024. ●   A final demand was issued on 23/12/2024. ●   A manual appeal dated 12/12/2024, was received from the keeper on 04/01/2025 wherein the appellant claimed she did not receive the initial notice, and cited PoFA 2012. No evidence was submitted to support the appeal, or of authorisation from the operator to use the site. ●   The evidence confirms the following: o   A PoFA Notice to Keeper was issued o   System records confirm the initial notice was issued in line with PoFA 2012 o   The keeper was confirmed o   There was adequate signage at the location o   Contact information was on the signage at 481 Green Lanes o   The location is private property o   The vehicle was unauthorised o   The vehicle’s VRM was not registered on the exemption list o   photographic evidence confirmed the vehicle was indeed parked on the private land o   CUP Enforcement has a rolling contract with the landlord o   CUP Enforcement is BPA compliant ●   The appeal was rejected for the reasons listed above and also due to the fact that the appellant failed to submit any evidence of authorisation. ●   On 23/01/2025, a reminder was issued after the appeal rejection. ●   On 06/02/2025, a final demand was issued after the appeal rejection and reminder. ●   Within their POPLA, the keeper again confirmed her identity, and again submitted no evidence of authority form the parking operator to use the parking space. The driver had the opportunity to observe the signage, nevertheless chose to use private land. A stationary vehicle is classed as a parked vehicle. The location is restricted for use by those authorised to use the location. Authorisation is confirmed by the presence of VRMs on the list for the site. The vehicle was not exempt. The signage states the terms and conditions at the location which was present on all signage for the interests of the driver. Contact information was displayed, however none was made. A copy of the signage is included in this evidence pack. The charge was £100, reduced and held at £60 for 14 days to allow for early payment and a further 14 days further to the appeal response. The charge now stands at £140. This parking contravention occurred on private land, the contract formed is between the motorist and the parking operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they have sought out, read and complied with the parking operator’s terms and conditions, which are stated on the signage. CUP can conclude that the driver disregarded the terms, failed to follow their duty as a motorist and failed to follow the instructions required for correctly parking their vehicle. The motorist therefore failed to fulfil their obligations in this instance. CUP has a legal right to issue PCNs and have been entrusted by the landlord with the responsibility to carry out enforcement when motorists are in breach of the terms and conditions communicated on all signboards on CUP patrolled sites. As the vehicle was parked unauthorised and unlisted, within a restricted area in breach of the terms in place at the site; adequate signage which highlighted the conditions for use of the land was present; a PoFA was issued, the keeper’s identity was confirmed, and submitted no evidence to support cancellation of the charge, we stand by the decision to issue the PCN and request the refusal of the appeal. Please see the uploaded items for images, and the evidence pack complete with supporting documents.

Appeal successful,  thank you. Your advice has been invaluable. Do you need a copy of the decision ?

Donation to the Hospice on its way.

All well noted. Thank you. I will revert
 

I have this evening 07/02 submitted my POPLA appeal, thanks you again. You've been wonderful

Ok. Thanks. I haven't raised it in my latest formal complaint so let's see what they say to that first. Appreciate your input.

The other original NtK issued under a separate PCN that you already advised me on is now attached, front and back for your reference,  just in case that assists you.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

My first letter of appeal was the 12th December correct. I overwrote that when I sent the orher letter of 6th January in largely the same wording.