Free Traffic Legal Advice

Couldn't find a definitive elsewhere, apologies for starting a new one if this has already been discussed.

On mediation calls for a private PCN with the likes of UKPC represented by DCB, does one simply offer £0 and leave it at that? Is there any obligation to provide any reasoning behind the offer other than that UKPC aren't owed any money?

Thank you

Do I leave the bit about mediation blank?

Great, that's been filed. I'm also going to ignore the email they sent over offering me a discounted settlement.

WP Letter is the Without Prejudice email I received with the over of settlement that I enclosed I had copied into my previous post

Thank you

Received an automated response

Please note that we will aim to respond to your correspondence where required as soon as possible. In the meantime, should you be contacting in relation to a Parking Charge, you can find some Frequently asked Questions (FAQs) on our website www.dcblegal.co.uk

Should you wish to make a payment, you can do this by calling 0330 1744 172, visiting https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/ or by bank transfer to the below bank details. Please ensure your DCB legal reference number is quoted with any payments made.

Account number: 60964441
Sort Code: 20-24-09

Should you be in receipt of a letter of claim, please visit www.dcblegal.co.uk/response where you will find further information and be able to reply to the form accordingly.

Assume that they have an obligation to respond to email and I don't need to fill out their form.

Great, thank you. I will ignore and await DCB!

Letter of claim from DCB received in the post this morning!

Claim has been passed on to ZZPS.

I assume these people are debt collectors and not a law firm.

Thank you

POPLA Appeal Rejected - Surely this is incorrect!? Has the assessor completely misunderstood my appeal?

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not parking correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • The operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) and so the liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper • The notice does not clearly invite the keeper to name the driver, and it does not give specific warning to the keeper as required that they will be held liable if driver details are not provided within 28 days • The notice does not specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked, and does not inform the keeper of the reason for issuing the charge clearly The appellant has provided 1. A copy of the rejection notice from the operator The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has raised that the operator has failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012, and therefore they cannot be held liable for the PCN as the registered keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The parking operator has issued the PCN in this case as the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay. Images of the vehicle have been provided which clearly confirms the vehicle was not parked within the white bay markings as per the requirements of the car park which are detailed on the signs. The operator has made it sufficiently clear on the PCN that this is the reason the PCN was issued on this occasion, and this consequence is also made adequately clear on the terms and conditions signage. The PCN itself lists the address of the site, which is Beckton Triangle Retail Park, 5 Claps Gate Lane, London, E6 6LG, and is the address the operator claims vehicle was present and parked. For the purposes of PoFA. The relevant land has been specified as required, and therefore meets paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA. The appellant has not provided any explanation as to why this address or relevant land is not correct. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including inviting the registered keeper to provide the name and address of the driver, along with warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver within 28 days. In this case, I have reviewed the PCN in question and the parking operator has ensured to include the necessary information required, and so the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. In this case, Mr . POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the vehicle was observed parked outside of the confines of the bay or space, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.