Free Traffic Legal Advice

What vehicle? CAZ and ULEZ should be the same.

They are.

When you enter your reg number into Bristol's CAZ checker, what does it come back with?

Ditto London's ULEZ.

The text of the appeal was along the lines that the markings on the ground are missing due to the gravel being worn away and they are not clearly defined bays.

Can you post the photo(s) they have as evidence that you weren't parked in a marked bay?

No.

The legislation requires that the NtK invite the keeper to pay the charges OR nominate another driver.

I understand the point which you are making - that the operator has a choice as to which one they invite the driver to do - but that isn't in keeping with the grammar of the text of the legislation.

Mmm.  I understand the point which you are making, but IMO the grammar is clear.  The whole of Para 9(2) talks about what the notice must do or contain - it must do (a) and (b) and (c) etc, until we get to (e) which is to be read as 'the notice must do (e)(i) or the notice must do (e)(ii)'.

If we look at 9(2)(a) it says that the notice must "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".

9(2)(b) - "inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"

IMO if 9(2)(e) was meant to say that the notice must invite the keeper to either pay up or to throw the driver under the bus it would have been worded something like

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay
the unpaid parking charges or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle,
to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

But as it is, with a 9(2)(e)(i) separated from a 9(2)(e)(ii) with a '; or' it's not saying 'the notice must invite the keeper to do this or to do that', it's saying 'the notice must invite the keeper to do this or the notice must invite the keeper to do that'.

But as ixxy says, it would need a court case to determine exactly what it means.

Did you enter your reg correctly when you scanned your receipt?

The driver did.

If so they have short changed you on the grace period. My guess though is either you entered your reg incorrectly or it didnt register properly.

Ignore what I said above - for some reason I was assuming they were pursuing a less-than-10-minute overstay, but looking at the NtK again they don't mention an overstay period, just a total stay.  IHNI why I assumed that. 

Have you approached Sainsburys?

Yes.

Do you still have your receipt, or other proof of shopping there on that day?

The driver does.

If so appeal as the keeper saying the driver was a genuine shopper who registered and provide the proof. That will hopefully get it cancelled or at least reduced to £20.

Why £20?

My advice is dont bother with the alleged POFA compliance stuff, Euro will reject and as we've seen on quite a few POPLA appeals in the last few days so will POPLA.

Well, yes, but...

Keep it simple and to the point, don't try to get clever, it doesn't work.

Please don't take this as having a go at you - it really isn't, but I don't agree that expecting a parking management company to abide by the law is "being clever".

Right now I'd be minded to fight this all the way, unless it risked literally thousands of pounds, on the grounds that legally they simply do not have the right to transfer liability to the keeper, Euro Car Parks and POPLA "intellectual malnourishment" be damned.

So even if I lead with a < 10 minute overstay and a non-BPA compliant lack of a grace period, should I not also mention PoFA compliance at this stage in case I want to rely on it later?

As per the subject, I've had a NtK from ECP for overstaying in a Sainsbury car park.  The time limit is 2 hours for customers, the driver was a customer and successfully scanned their till receipt on leaving the store - the alleged contravention is overstaying the 2 hour limit, not not being a customer.

I shall be appealing to ECP on the following grounds.

• The overstay was under 10 minutes.  I thought that as members of the BPA they are supposed to give a 10 minute grace period.
   
  
• I believe that the NtK is invalid [ https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/eurocarparks-sainsburys-overstay/ ].
  
  I will be looking at that issue myself, but it'll take me a bit of time to read and digest the relevant paragraph(s) from PoFA, so if anybody here knows it inside out and can tell straight away from looking at the NtK if and how it is non-compliant that would be great to know.

This is not my first encounter with ECP, so I have asked the DVLA if there have been any recent requests for my details as keeper, just in case ECP didn't request them and are using ones they've got on file, but the DVLA may not respond in time.
 
Also, have I missed the 14-day discount window? The NtK was "issued" on 14/3, which was a Saturday, so isn't it deemed not to have been delivered to me until Wed 18th?  But my bad for not paying attention and getting my appeal in earlier.
 

He stopped, it would appear because the truck turned in front of him.

But when he entered the box at about 08:35:24, his exit was not clear:



He was anticipating it would be, but I'm wondering if what he could see from the driver's seat made him worry, for a brief moment, that it might not be when he got there, and slowed a little so that he wouldn't end up being forced to stop by vehicles blocking his exit.  And when he slowed the truck driver took his chance.

Neither was the exit clear for the silver van at 08:35:19 or the black one a couple of seconds after.

Now - I've always been led to believe that if the HC says "MUST", it's reflecting an actual law, but in this case it is not.

The HC says "You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear".   But the law doesn't - it says "a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles."

So why does the HC say "MUST NOT"?  I wonder if the two van drivers have also been done?

I always thought it was a case re the exit being clear of "should not enter on the grounds that you must not stop", but hands up - who hasn't at some time entered a YBJ anticipating that they'd make it across, and with some of those times had a brief don't-stop-don't-stop-don't-stop worry about the traffic in front?




And that rejection is a mess.   It quotes the HC "MUST NOT" and in the next para says "should not". 

Gotta say though that it really does look in the video like the offending car slowed dramatically, almost to a complete stop, before the truck turned in front of him.

I find it to be quite incongruous that the Police et al can had out fines to dog owners whose animals conduct themselves in the same manner unless they pick the mess up, while horse owners/riders are exempt.

It's just another example of two-tier treatment of animals and their owners.

Think what cat owners get away with, and whether dog owners could do the same.

Imagine somebody owning a dog, and allowing it to roam free, jumping fences into people's gardens, defecating at will there, killing wildlife - do you think they'd get away with it?

Cats though, well all that is just fine.