Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks for that.  I have been pouring not only over the site but also the legislation link kindly provided by DWMB2 in their reply and think that the points that are not PoFa12 compliant are :

1. No ‘Period of Parking’ Specified
The NtK merely presents a single timestamp. However, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” A single point in time cannot logically represent a period. This issue was addressed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where it was held that:
“A timestamp alone is insufficient to demonstrate a period of parking.”
This NtK therefore fails to evidence any contravention, and it does not establish the basis for keeper liability.

2. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified
The operator has not identified the driver, nor have they demonstrated any legal basis to assume that the Keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan held:
“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving…”
No evidence has been provided to suggest who was driving at the time. Since PoFA conditions have not been met (as outlined above), the operator cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. There is no driver identification, and no basis for keeper liability.

Is there anything else ?

Also should I not preface all of this by stating that the driver was in the area for less than 5 minutes and therefore did not enter into a contract for the purposes of parking etc.

Finally : should I write back now with the above or wait until POPLA so that they do not reissue a new letter and revise some of the above points ?

Cheers

Hi All

My first post on FTLA (RIP Pepipoo).

Can folks help me with a situation.  I think I have the right idea but would value the experience of those on this site as certainly those on Pepipoo were amazing.

A driver entered an empty roadside pub car park temporarily.  They did not leave the car and did not switch off the engine.  They were in the car for around 3-4 minutes (they think).

If I am correct ( ? ) that is not parking as the driver remained in the vehicle and car engine was still on. 

A 'Parking Charge' from PCS on behalf of PESS has since been sent to the registered car owners address.  All of which appears pretty much locked down since the old private carpark loopholes have been sewn up.  But the letter states that the Parking Charge was issued following observation by a warden operated camera.  They do not offer any access to that footage for verification or indeed for how long the car was observed and or for what offence was committed save the note of parking on private land.

It gives the usual - needs to be paid in 14 days - or otherwise the charge escalates etc.

I have not uploaded the letter as I would ordinarily or have posted a belated image of the sign in the car park as I think this might be straight forward ...

At this moment in time I was hoping that I am correct in being able to reply back to PCS to explain that the driver was 'not' parked and although they had entered the designated area they did not disengage the engine or leave the vehicle and so had not parked the vehicle as stated.  Instead they decided after a few minutes that the terms of parking in the area were not satisfactory and so promptly left the car park immediately after seeking telephone advice.  Going on to say : if in doubt with my explanation to please forward to me a copy of the footage that clearly demonstrates that the car had parked and the driver had left.

Any thoughts and / or advice would be most welcome.

Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]