1
Private parking tickets / Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« on: July 20, 2025, 09:07:20 am »
Please ignore the above. I have read your message again.
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.
The only way this will be dealt with is by appealing as the Keeper. No appeal will be successful but you have to go through the motions. Eventually a court claim will be made and if you follow all the advice, it will eventually either be struck out or discontinued. the whole process will take anything from 9 months otherwise a year or more.
The operator has no idea who the driver is and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. So, no inadvertently blabbing the drivers identity. As the Keeper, you always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver idi this or that".
First step is to follow this advice:
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKCPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKCPM have no hope should you try to litigate this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when you receive the appeal rejection.
Your posts do not obscure personal information such as your name and address, which you might not want to display on an essentially public forum.
The only way this will be dealt with is by appealing as the Keeper. No appeal will be successful but you have to go through the motions. Eventually a court claim will be made and if you follow all the advice, it will eventually either be struck out or discontinued. the whole process will take anything from 9 months otherwise a year or more.
The operator has no idea who the driver is and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. So, no inadvertently blabbing the drivers identity. As the Keeper, you always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver idi this or that".
First step is to follow this advice:
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKCPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKCPM have no hope should you try to litigate this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when you receive the appeal rejection.
As per yr earlier thread, we need to see
all sides of the PCN (redact only yr name & address - leave all else in),
a copy of yr reps to the Council'
and
a copy of their Notice of Rejection (only redact yr name & address).
Sorry,
Missed one page. Please see it here.
Thanks in advance.
(Attachment Link)
Try as I might, I cannot see in any of your posts+1
all sides of the PCN (with only yr name & address redacted),
a copy of what you wrote to the council,
nor
a copy of their Notice of Rejection?
You may want to edit yr second image in yr opening post to redact yr name & address.
This is the basis of your problem; using satnav without paying attention to roadsigns.QuoteI was following 2 GPS tracking phones, one with Amazon maps and another with Google Maps
Please also give us some real information to go on, rather then telling us all about other cases and information of no value to you or us.
.
- PCN all sides with only name and address redacted
- Description of journey that gave rise to the PCN
Here are some GSV extracts. The southbound approach is only up to 2022 so may not be up-to-date, so not posted
North-bound along Peterborough Road
Advance warning sign: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MAA3bZ54g4MVryha8
Restriction signs
https://maps.app.goo.gl/d531jbGfu9sHq5X36
These are absurdly high up. So high, in fact, in my opinion, as to not meet the test of 'adequacy' in The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR)
Approaching Peterborough Road on Clancarty Road
Advance warning sign
https://maps.app.goo.gl/UXN6tAibRQ9KBzjHA
Having now looked at GSV, and assuming you came down Clancarty Road and turned right, the restriction signs are absurdly high and likely to be missed. That may be the best avenue for an appeal at London Tribunals.
There may be a "technical" appeal based on H & F mismanagement of the enforcement process, but I'll leave that to others more knowledgeable than myself.
This is the basis of your problem; using satnav without paying attention to roadsigns.
Try as I might, I cannot see in any of your posts
all sides of the PCN (with only yr name & address redacted),
a copy of what you wrote to the council,
nor
a copy of their Notice of Rejection?
You may want to edit yr second image in yr opening post to redact yr name & address.
As per yr earlier thread, we need to see
all sides of the PCN (redact only yr name & address - leave all else in),
a copy of yr reps to the Council'
and
a copy of their Notice of Rejection (only redact yr name & address).
I would still do it since I don't have the money to pay them and this would grant me about to 2 months at best case scenario before they send in the bailiffs to collect ? Problem is I would then pay £160 each for a total of £320 ...
Think again.
If bailiffs arrived at your door they'd be demanding (£160+£80+£10+£75+£235+£160+80+£10+£75) = £885.
£160 - the standard penalty;
£80 - the surcharge of 50%;
£10 - court registration fee;
£75 - bailiff compliance fee;
£235 - bailiff enforcement fee.