Free Traffic Legal Advice

Okay so here is the full claim form:

https://freeimage.host/i/Ks5DQLX
https://freeimage.host/i/Ks5DLXt
https://freeimage.host/i/Ks5DD1s

Although DCBL were sending me collection letters and are the "Address for sending documents and payments", the claimant is National Parking Control

The claim is signed for by David John Croot who is a director/solicitor at DCB Legal, I'll await your confirmation and submit the defence you sent.

I really do appreciate your help, I owe you a pint or something at the least!!

If you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to NPC. However, you will not win this with any appeal. It will go all the way to a court claim where we will advise on how to defend it and eventually the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.

Are you prepared to follow the advice and fight or are you low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will eventually pay up out of ignorance and fear?

For starters, by appealing and identifying as the driver, you have already blow away the no Keeper liability defence. Thisis because you should only have appealed as the Keeper of the vehicle and referred to the driver in the third person. Until you blabbed that you, the known Keeper, were also the unknown driver, they had no idea who the driver was.

Because their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they could not hold the known Keeper if the unknown drivers identity was known. That useful defence has now gone.

However... the same reason that they have failed to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a), also means that they have not evidenced that the vehicle was stopped for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been formed by conduct. The BPA/IPC PPSCoP section 5.1 requires that a minimum 5 minute consideration period is required, in order to allow the driver to seek out and find the signs, read and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions of parking before issuing a PCN.

Also, basic contract law requires a consideration period for a contract by conduct to be formed. Without this evidence, they can't prove that a contract was formed with the driver and any judge worth his salt would throw it out of court.

So, if you want to avoid paying a penny to NPC, are you prepared to follow the advice and fight this? If not, then I won't bother providing further advice unless you confirm that you don't want to waste your hard earned money paying NCP.

Good Morning

I thoroughly enjoyed your response, I admit I knew I had messed up by appealing, it was a reaction stemmed from emotion, I shall no longer do this on the matter.

Although I did tick the "registered keeper" and not the "I was the driver" box, I understand by blabbing I have lost that defence, ignorance on my part, good to know for next time.

Normally I am the gullible person who would pay, but as a matter of principle I do not want to give them a penny of my money, I work two jobs for my daughter, not to pay them more than the entire amount I earned on the night, irrelevant but I hope this echos how irritated I am at this appeal denial, it baffles me how any sane person can sit there and deny an person with obvious merit to be there and clearly not trying to circumvent parking rules, simply doing my job.

Thank you so much for providing the PoFA 9(2)(a) argument, I argued the same thing, although in layman's terms without paraphrasing anything so moot point

So are my next steps to essentially do nothing/ignore everything until a letter before action I assume? Sod the next appeal correct?

I am prepared to fight this, all the way, in fact after reading your response I think I relish the idea of fighting it.

Hello all,

I received a parking charge notice from National Parking Control (npc)

The stated reasoning is "Parked in an area where parking is prohibited"

The observed time is 18:53:47-18:55:12

I was un-loading for Amazon Flex

They have supplied an image of the vehicle over these times and finally an image of the parking sign

I appealed directly and it was denied

My appeal consisted of a screenshot of my amazon flex app showing I was delivering at the time, I stated that I was not parked, but un-loading, and that I took took time to read signage and left as there is nothing about unloading on the sign, just parking.


Evidence I have:

Amazon App - I have the block time and date proving I was working at the time

Screenshots - I have a screenshot of the overall block route, plotted on a map showing I was in that area at the time

I also have a screenshot of one of the apartment block addresses, proving I was on site (I do not have the second address, but I delivered two to the same building, the only reason I have the address screenshotted is due to seeing my own apartment complex as a delivery stop, I found it amusing and just so happened to catch this one.

The address in question also states a completed delivery time of "Delivered at 18:54"


Google Maps: Google maps timeline showing me zig-zagging across that area, for no reason other than to deliver I can argue

I had to deliver two packages to the apartment complex, both requiring separate trips as well as a wait time for the resident to buzz me in and collect

I have contacted Amazon to see if they can simply provide me with confirmation that I was delivering to XXX Avenue to building XXX without them having to confirm too many customer details, I don't think they will comply however.

My current plan of action is to not pay the £60, and let the matter reach court once I ignore the debt collectors.

I do have the option of a IAS appeal, do I take this?

I shall add images of the alleged contravention to see what you guys think, I cannot add the screenshots of the route or snippet of delivery itinerary on, but do you think that with these bits of evidence I would successfully be able to argue (with some more structure) that I was loading, and not parking? And therefore the charge is not applicable?

Thanks and any advice appreciated

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]