3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PF1

Pages: [1] 2
1
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 09, 2025, 08:41:35 pm »
There's 2 live PCNs but as i mentioned before, they are threatening to send one each day. (they havent so far). But i cannot move the car for a couple weeks. Yes the car is parked here still.

That seems crazy that the NtK isn't required to provide any actual evidence at all?! They could just make a claim to absolutely any parked car otherwise? There is no photo from ANPR attached to the letter. So it is literally a baseless claimed parking period?


So, is your advice to word the appeal letter- saying "if you cannot prove the period of alleged parking, please cancel this"?

(even though POFA doesnt require evidence?)

2
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 08, 2025, 12:25:01 pm »
specifically: is a letter from NSGL not compliant with schedule 4 of PoFA if it does CLAIM a period of parking and specifiy on the letter, but there is no photographic evidence to back it up?
(the online portal shows evidence pictures only of the car for 50s stationary)

(see screenshot below)


Can i still mention schedule 4 in my defesne letter...

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

3
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 08, 2025, 12:13:07 pm »
ok thankyou! do you have any guidance on the other questions stated above please?

4
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 08, 2025, 12:54:53 am »
Quote from: b789 on July 07, 2025, 02:05:10 pm
If they can put together a claim for multiple parking charges then they will be incentivised to pursue it. However, they cannot keep submitting multiple claims for essentially the same contravention for the same vehicle at the same location for the same alleged breach of contract.

The sign is arguable not compliant with POFA and certainly failed Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule. You could also argue that it is not compliant with the CRA. However, this is all academic unless they actually issue a claim.

It is up to you if or how you want to fight this. It is a simple fact that there is a clause in your lease that says you have to obtain a permit to park at the property. the is the stumbling point for you.

^^ Please could you further clarify a) "they cannot keep submitting multiple claims for essentially the same contravention for the same vehicle at the same location for the same alleged breach of contract." what do you mean by this? are you saying because the car is constantly parked there long term, it's just one contravention?

b) could you expand on this: "It is up to you if or how you want to fight this." i will need to fight it for a few weeks if there is a chance they are not following PoFa properly, I will try and have every letter overturned. until i can move the car away after the family health emergency i am dealing with.

Should i just draft a letter of response asking them to cancel it  due to 1) inadequate signage and 2) picture evidence only showing the car stationary for 50s?

Many thanks as always for the help.

5
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 08, 2025, 12:49:04 am »
Ah- i was trying to keep the threads separate as they were addressing different questions.

Could either of you please let me know if the previous example of the defence letter i used for their previous NtK is ok to use (minus the comment about the lack of observation time on the letter and instead just mentioning the insufficient time on the pictures used for "evidence". where the car is only pictured for 60s)

many thanks for your help!

6
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« on: July 07, 2025, 12:37:09 pm »
Hi there- yes indeed it is. I just wanted to keep this specific reply separate so I could have a clear response on how to send a letter to cancel this exact NSGL charge?

We discussed briefly in the other thread but now that they have put an observed from and observed until time in the letter, I may have to tweak the letter of response you drafted for me before.


I want to attach below, a previous letter od response you drafted for me and just ask if i REMOVE the section about them not having an observation time in the letter, is it ok for me to send the letter just mentioning the inaqeduate picture proof evidence and the inadequate signage?

Basically, how can i respond to this case now? Is it still ok to send the same letter of response just instead stating that "although you have mentioned observing the car for a long period, the picture evidence only shows the car for 60s"

will that be enough to cancel the charge? (along with the inadequate signage)

Many thanks as always

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

7
Private parking tickets / Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 07, 2025, 12:23:36 pm »
Ok thankyou-

I am dealing with the response letters for the keeper. the keeper has not made the identity of the driver known to NSGL.


Historically, the letters that the keeper has recieved from this NSGL car park before have never had an observed from and observed till time on them. Hence the easy defence.

It's only been the last couple of charges now that have had the times written. But the picture evidence in support is only showing the car parked for 50s.

So my questions in defence of the keeper/ to deny any contract formed with the car park are as follows:


- if the letter has an observed from and observed until time stated but the picture evidence attached online NSGL site only have 5 pictures of the car within 50s. Is that a strong enough case to defend and to deny any contract formed on grounds of not complying with PoFA?

- In a previous defence letter you drafted for me- the signage was inadequate and only has the £100 charge written in very small letters. Even if the letter has an observed time from and until stated, is the inadequate signage itself enough to defend any contract for a while?


Longer term, in simple terms:

- if NSGL/ the block of flats are sending a charge every day for weeks, even if the signage is in breach of PoFA and the photograph evidence they attach to every letter is inadequate every time and is easily defendable to show entering no contract between driver and car pakr... is it likely that despite their breaches of PoFA in every letter, do they still have a strong argument to take the keeper to court due to the amount of letters sent if there is a build of multiple (say 10 or more letters)?

So in simple terms, is the driver/ keeper screwed even if NSGL evidence and letters have inadequate evidence and in breach of PoFA?


Final question, the car park has ANPR camera too on entry. The driver seems to have evaded it every time. if driver gets caught on the ANPR on entry and leaving- will the defence against any NSGL charge be virtually zero/ minimal, as the timings and picture evidence will be so clear? Even with the inadequate signage?


I will attach a picture of the signage which you advised previously was inadequate, and the support picture evidence online which shows the car only parked for 50s (despite the letter claiming longer). As you can see, they attach 5 pictures. the first is only a matter of seconds before the last.

thankyou, this is helping me gain a lot of clarity in our defence until the driver can find a car park to legitimately keep the car.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

8
Private parking tickets / Re: NSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: July 05, 2025, 02:00:26 pm »
Hi both, thankyou for your responses.

Sorry- my previous message wasn't very clear.


The driver is a resident at this location. the keeper is not.

To tell the full backstory clearly; the driver needs to park the car at the car park on site of their apartment block.

The apartment block hires out parking spots for £200 p/m. The driver has tried to negotiate a parking spot hire whilst the car is needed there. (it is for family emergencies/ ferrying grandparents between hospital visits).


The apartment block has refused a parking spot, despite there being spaces on site.


I will attach the info in the lease below.


The driver has pleaded, to no avail.

There has been no written confirmation from the driver to the apartment block that they are the driver of the vehicle. The apartment block has observed the person (because they know the person visually). but there has been no written communication of the driver admitting they are the driver. the staff on site just know who they are.


The building block has issued a warning saying they will manually enforce a parking charge for every day back to back that the car is observed on site. The driver needs the car here for the personal reasons but is denied a parking spot.
So is willing to take the risk and fight the multiple fines/ ignore them until a permit is offered.

This is because the driver has had multiple previous parking charges cancelled from this venue because NSGL have not followed POPLA protocol. (tHANKS to this group's wonderful advice)


It is a confrontational situation i know, but seems to be the driver's only option which is a real shame.

Based on your advice, will multiple back to back fines are issued (even if not followed POPLA code properly), is it likely this is a strong case in court, and the tenant is facing a losing battle?

The NSGL and apartment block have been incredibly sloppy in there issuing of charges so far, that was what the tenant was hoping would continue in his favour.

but if you advise that with this being a repeat daily charge (even if only observed parking with a 60s set of evidence photos eveery day), that it's impossible/ difficult to stop this being escalated to court, then the driver will have to concede.

The hope is, that with the POPLA code not followed on every single charge issued, that all charges will be null and void?

Sorry for the difficult case, i appreciate any guidance if you have any at all on the matter.


Below evidence attached:

- a copy of PREVIOUS charges issued for this car park (*to show how sloppy they usually are*)

- the tenacy agreement on parking


Thankyou so much for any help

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

9
Private parking tickets / PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« on: July 05, 2025, 01:33:14 pm »
The keeper has had multiple charges like this from this exact carpark, wrongly enforcing parking charges with evidential photos that only show the car parked for less than 1 minute.

Based on a letter drafted up from this group, that has been re used and slightly edited each time, the keeper has had every charge cancelled, so thankyou for your help.


This time, one small change to the NtK. There is an "observed from and observed to" time on the NtK. Despite the evidence photos only showing 48 seconds.

just wondered if the same sort of drafted letter would be fine to use in this situation? that the short time scale of photos as evidence is enough to cancel the charge?


See attached, a pervious example of a letter that the keeper usually sends, drafted from your help in this. i imagine they can send something similar this time , but with a slight tweak to the observation period section>?

thankyou for all your help

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

10
Private parking tickets / PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: June 26, 2025, 11:00:10 am »
Hi guys-

The driver of this vehicle has had an email from their apartment block building saying they observed the driver's vehicle unauthorised parking at their apartment block every day since Monday 16th June. Screenshot attached.

it's important to note the driver emailed is not the registered keeper of the vehicle. i believe they have made an assumption to email the driver due to seeing that the driver is a resident of the flat.

They threaten to apply a ticket every day they observe the car on site.

The driver informs me that they have tried multiple times in person to speak to the management of the block of flats to get a permit to park. but have been continuously told "sure, we can sort a permit, will email you". Only to find, it has never been sorted.


The driver has parked here multiple times before as needed to for work and personal reasons but couldn't obtain a permit, despite request.

The keeprer has responded to multiple parking charge letters in the past from this car park, with a template letter scripted up with help from this group- which has successfully cancelled all charges due to NSGL not following protocol. (their signage inadequately displays the £ charge amount and the "evidence" photo they take of the car is always a static one second picture, so doesn't prove the vehicle broke the grace period).


What would be the group's advice here on how to deal with this situation? have the driver claim it isn't their vehicle in response to the email and then accept the multiple letters of parking charge and respond to each with the letter about inadequate evidence or signage in accordance with POPLA?

Or, if the building has a picture or evidence of the vehicle on multiple days back to back from now on- will there not be a possibility to fight this?


(attaching a screenshot of a previous letter that this same building car park has sent to the keeper, to show what they usually send). Note: all previous parking charges have been successfully cancelled after one letter.

thanks as always for your help!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

11
Private parking tickets / Re: PPS Parking PCN – Reduced to "cancellation fee". Not paid. Now escalated to debt recovery – Tottenham, london
« on: April 02, 2025, 01:26:28 pm »
ok - thank you for the guidance. So, is the "LBC" stage the same thing that I am waiting for here that you call an LoC? Is that the same thing?


Essentially, I still have to wait for the next step to be initiated and it is probably one step away now? If they decide to escalate it?

and to clarify, because the driver engaged with the parking management over email already, there is nothing more we can do right now. We cannot contact PPS to shut this down, no? We must now wait for an LoC, nothing else?

12
Private parking tickets / Re: PPS Parking PCN – Reduced to "cancellation fee". Not paid. Now escalated to debt recovery – Tottenham, london
« on: April 02, 2025, 11:57:28 am »
Hi there- I don't know if this is the LoC letter you needed us to wait for before taking further action? Can you advise on if we can now respond and shut this down?

Let me know and I can send re-send all of the details of the matter, including the fact that the management of the parking had already agreed that no parking charge should be charged and instead they would charge a £20 admin cancellation fee. That alone, should be enough to close it down.


Anyway- please let me know if this is one we can respond to now? or if not, are we going to have to wait until they try and take it to court?!


Please see attached

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

13
Private parking tickets / Re: PPS Parking PCN – Reduced to "cancellation fee". Not paid. Now escalated to debt recovery – Tottenham, london
« on: February 17, 2025, 11:40:22 am »
Morning everyone - As advised I'm coming back to the group when they next contact. Although I don't know if this is a letter of claim or just another chase up?

However, if possible - and if you think it would work - I would very much like to reach out to them now and close this case off. The owner of the vehicle is a pensioner, who is struggling to deal with the letter threats (despite me re assuring her multiple times that they can't escalate this). So, as you can imagine- it would be a massive help for her if we can use the evidence shown so far or my previous messages about their method of using scratch cards for permits or not having appropriate signage on the street?

I would be happy to go and grab evidence from the site location of the lack of appropriate signage if that helps to just close this case off.
Or even, if the email conversation where the parking management admit they will reduce the parking charge to a "cancellation fee" as there were no grounds for charge?

If any of that would help to close the case- i'd like to try.

Otherwise - Please see attached the most recent letter today from a DRA.

Thankyou as always for your help in these stressful cases!




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

14
Private parking tickets / Re: PPS Parking PCN – Reduced to "cancellation fee". Not paid. Now escalated to debt recovery – Tottenham, london
« on: January 26, 2025, 08:11:38 pm »
Ah ok - apologies for the confusion. Please note- the Debt recovery letter tried to claim a £90 fee, not the £20 reduced fee. Let me send the first NtK.

For clarity of timeline:

- NtK recieved for £100

- Driver emails to the land owner HCCM, to plead case

- HCCM reduce to £20 cancellation fee

- Keeper / driver ignores email

- PPS send £20 NtK (apparent "cancellation fee")

- Keeper / driver ignores £20 letter

- DRP send letter attempting to claim £90 debt recovery


Can you also clarify that because of the crazy poor system of using hand collected scratch card parking permits, (Only available to get by collection) - that there is no breach of POPLA here or something? How can they use such an archaic method which allows for issues like this to occur, if the driver cannot immediately access a physical permit?
The attendant didn't place a notice on the car window at all either?

My only other argument was also that there was no appropriately visible or large signage saying that the permit MUST be placed on dashboard within "30 minutes". Or at least perhaps it was not adaquate signage?


So to clarify, have you seen the DRA letter I sent in the first post? Despite the threat that they can escalate the matter and affect the keeper's credit score, you are saying they do not have the power to do that, correct?


As seen below. the initial PCN was issued on 1st November.





[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

15
Private parking tickets / Re: PPS Parking PCN – Reduced to "cancellation fee". Not paid. Now escalated to debt recovery – Tottenham, london
« on: January 26, 2025, 04:58:49 pm »
Well this is fantastic. Many thanks again for your clear guidance on here, really appreciated.


There was absolutely no NtD left on the car. No communication left on the vehicle at all.
As I mentioned before though, the driver had finally managed to fill out the yellow parking permit and placed it visibly on the dashboard for the rest of the day. It just wasn't there for the 30 minute grace period the attendant observed the car for.


"What you have shown us appears to be a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that has been issued at least 28 days and no less that 56 days after the issue of an NtD. However, if that is the case, PPS have referenced the wrong PoFA paragraph as they should reference paragraph 8(2)(f)."
- Great, yes this is the case. No NtD left on the car, a letter with an NtK was issued to the keeper around a week later. Hopefully, I can use this case to close the issue?


The photographic evidence on the PPS site is no longer available but at the time it shows pictures of the car observed 35 minutes apart without the permit in the window as they stated is "apparently" the grace period observed. Clear and obvious signage is not here to show that. there are no pole signs, just one on the wall on the same street.


The driver emailed HCCM management (the highcross centre mgmt) as they were advised to by the person they were working with that day. They did not email with PPS. I believe HCCM are just the owners of the land/ the industrial estate. The driver may have made their identity clear to HCCM. Although maybe not passed on to PPS


I will provide a full transcript of the conversation to show the appeal process so far from the driver. It was more personal, attempting to plea with the retail park manager (not PPS) that this was a silly mistake and that they had a valid permit. (Including photgraphic evidence). They did admit that they were driving.:


To confirm. no appeal or contact was made directly between driver and PPS. Only with the highcross centre mgmt.




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1] 2