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 - taylorjohn21

Pages: [1]
1
I received this reply after submitting my appeal - please can you advise on how I should respond.
The parking firm has ignored the grounds for my appeal.
They have asked me to provide the name of the driver, which I am, legally, not obliged to do at this stage.
I have seven days to reply.

Regards

John

Quote
Dear,

Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to parking charge reference

To assist us in making a decision regarding your appeal, please confirm the full name and address of the driver to our Appeals Department within seven days of the date of this letter.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 discusses the recovery of unpaid parking charges. It allows parking operators to hold the registered keeper liable to pay unpaid parking charges if the operator has not been provided the name and a serviceable address of the driver.

This information may be confirmed by submitting another appeal on our website at www.ukpcappeals.co.uk, or by post to the address overleaf. Please ensure that if writing to us by post that you include the parking charge reference number and vehicle registration.

Failure to provide this information will give us no alternative other than to make our final decision based on the previous information received. At this stage a POPLA verification code will be provided.

The parking charge has been placed on hold whilst under appeal and may be settled in full at the current PCN rate of £100.00.

Yours sincerely,

2
Thank you for your advice. I will submit the appeal and let you know what happens.

3
Below is the draft of the appeal I intend to send to the car parking company - I decided not to include point 4.


Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number []

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement,
and there will be no admission as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

1. The Notice to Keeper was not served within 14 days of the alleged breach of contract to allow liability transfer to the driver.

The alleged breach of contract was recorded on 20/03/2026, the Notice To Keeper was issued on 25/03/2026, but only delivered,
by post, on 09/04/2026.

2. UKPC failed to comply with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that for a premises which holds more than 500 parking spaces a minimum
consideration period of 10 minutes be must given before a parking charge can be issued (see Annex B pages 34-36). The vehicle
entered the Broadwalk Centre at 10:49, while the Notice to Keeper states the alleged breach of contract occurred at 10:57.
This is 2 minutes before the end of the minimum consideration period.

3. There was no opportunity to pay the reduced parking charge of £60 since the 14 day window to do so had
already passed when the Notice to Keeper was delivered.

As stated in paragraph 1, the Notice to Keeper was delivered by post on 09/04/2026. This is after the Notice To Keeper
Final Reminder, demanding full payment, had been issued on 08/04/2026.

Yours sincerely


John Taylor

4
An adjunct to point 3.

3. There was no opportunity to pay the reduced parking charge of £60 since the 14 day window to do so had
already passed when the Notice to Keeper was received. I received The Notice to Keeper on the 09/04/2026
the day after the Notice To Keeper Final Reminder, demanding full payment, had already been issued on the
08/04/2026 (see image Notice To Keeper Reminder Front) .

5
All images, listed below, can be viewed via the following link https://postimg.cc/gallery/hmzVLnK

I, recently, received a Notice To Keeper for a vehicle parked on yellow lines/hatched area. (Images Car Parking 1, 2 and 3)

The alleged breach of contract took place at the Broadwalk Centre, Edgware,
Station Road, HA8 7BD on 20/03/2026 at 10:57:46.

The Notice To Keeper was issued on the 25/03/2026 (see images Notice To Keeper Front and Back).

A Notice To Keeper Reminder, demanding full payment, was issued on the 08/04/2026 (see images Notice To Keeper Reminder Front and Back).

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

I intend to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper was not served within 14 days of the alleged breach of contract to allow liability transfer to the driver.
The alleged breach occurred on the 20/03/2026, the Notice To Keeper was issued on the 25/03/2026, but I only received it,
in the post, on the 09/04/2026 (see image Notice To Keeper Front).

2. The company - UKPC - alleging the breach of contract failed to comply with the British Parking Association's Code of Practise.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practise states that for a premises which holds more than 500 parking spaces a minimum
consideration period of 10 minutes be must given before a parking charge can be issued (see Annex B pages 34-36 and images Parking Code
Annex B 34, 35 and 36). The visit to the Broadwalk Centre began at 10:49 and the alleged breech of contract occurred at 10:57 - 2 minutes
before the consideration period ended. Compare the time on the Entry Ticket with the time of the alleged breach of contract on the Notice To Keeper -
see images Entry Ticket and Notice To Keeper Front.

The link to the full code of practise is provided below.
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

3. There was no opportunity to pay the reduced parking charge of £60 since the 14 day window to do so had already passed
when the Notice to Keeper was received, in the post, on the 09/04/2026.

4. The terms and conditions displayed on the parking signage are ambiguous. Next to the statement 'No parking on yellow lines
or in an area with Hatched markings' a pictorial representation of yellow lines is displayed, but no representation of hatch markings
is shown. It is, therefore, not clear what exactly constitutes a breach of contract with regard to hatch markings (see images Sign and Terms and Conditions).

Please can you advise me on this and let me know if you need any further information.

Kind regards

John

6
You don't seem to have posted the PCN, so please do so. Only redact name and address. We can go and look at the video using your PCN Number and car reg, its easy-peasy.  The offence occurs at the point of entry into the box, and the video must show this. Their rejection is the usual Fob-Off, I'm afraid.

The PCN is AG47146723
The Car reg is LM09 LAO

Kind regards

John

7
nope

I have uploaded the video evidence in MP4 format as a zipfile, please let me know if you can now view it.
Thank you John

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

8
I also managed to download the video evidence in MP4 format - do you need me to send it to you or upload it somewhere?

Kind regards

John

10
Here is the response from the Council to my challenge

Quote
We have carefully considered your comments and decided not to cancel your PCN.

You have stated that there was temporary traffic lights, please be advised that traffic lights,
temporary or otherwise have no bearing on box junction criteria as box junctions are in place to
prevent gridlock and ease congestion. As such, if the light is green, but the exit is not clear
motorists must wait behind the box, until they can drive through without stopping.

The PCN was issued because your vehicle entered the box junction with the exit lane not being
clear and stopped due to the presence of a stationary vehicle in front, a bus, which entered the
restricted area prior to your vehicle. A contravention occurs if the motorist enters the box
junction and has insufficient space at the other side to exit without stopping. A contravention is
committed if any part of the vehicle is left stationary within the confines of the box junction
regardless of the length of time involved.

The CCTV footage shows your vehicle travelling through the box, following the vehicle ahead,
without slowing or waiting to ensure your exit route or lane was clear prior to entering.
Please be advised that motorists should not follow the vehicle in front as it may stop and
prevent their exit from the box junction.

The Highway Code Rule 174 states: "Box junctions. These have criss-crossed yellow lines
painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or
lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right and are
only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At
signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely
without stopping."

It is the practice of some drivers to follow other vehicles into box junctions, on the assumption
that the traffic will continue to flow smoothly, so that their own vehicle will not have to stop in
the box junction. However, the only way a driver can ensure that their vehicle does not breach
the above contravention, is by not entering the box junction until a space large enough to
accommodate their vehicle can be seen beyond the junction markings.

The Council would like to refer you to the following web link (Online Media), to where you can
view the CCTV evidence of the contravention; as well as the photographic images;

Is the Council right about this? Or should I appeal the decision to the independent Environment and Traffic
Adjudicator? Bear in mind that if I appeal and lose then the penalty charge I have to pay would increase from
£65.00 to £130.00.

I would be grateful for any advice you can offer on this forum.

Please let me know if you need any further information

John Taylor







[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

11
I would like to know from members on this forum whether they believe I have legal grounds to appeal a PCN I
recently received from my local council.

The PCN was issued for the following traffic contravention - 31J Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited.

The photographic evidence (together with the time stamps) provided by the Council is shown below.

Picture 1 - 13:58:58
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


Picture 2 - 13:59:09
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


Picture 3 - 13:59:09
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


Picture 4 - 13:59:10
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


I challenged this PCN as follows

Quote
I would like to challenge the liability for PCN AG47146723 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. I did not enter and stop in a box junction when prohibited.

1) In the frames you have provided - 2024-11-12 13:58:09 and 2024-11-12 13:59:10 - the exit was not blocked by stationary traffic when I entered the box junction as the bus and the traffic ahead of the box junction was still moving.

2) On the date the PCN was issued - 12/11/2024 - I believe there was a set of temporary traffic lights situated beyond the box junction on Station Road which were green when I entered the box junction.

3) My rear red brake lights were not on when my car was photographed in the box junction behind the bus in frames 2024-11-12 13:59:09 and 2024-11-12 13:59:10 - my car was, therefore, still in motion when the PCN was issued.


The Council rejected my challenge - their response is in the post below.

I also attach the PCN certificate and the rejection letter from the Council.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1]