Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes, the driver should be hoping for a cancellation - but as I say, an IPC company is very unlikely to do so. They will most likely reject and refer to the second stage "Independent Appeals Service" which is not independent at all and to most people a waste of time.

The most obvious PoFA failing is non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a): The notice fails to specify the actual period of parking. It only shows a single timestamp of 16:53. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a period of parking, not just a moment in time. There was a court case where this was successfully argued but for the life of me I can't remember which one, someone else might pipe up.

You should also look up the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and what it says about consideration/grace periods and signage.

The driver saw some parking bays and pulled in for less than one minute. Is one minute a reasonable amount of time to consider the parking contract if indeed there was even one available via adequate signage?

Furthermore, how could the driver enter a contract whereby parking is not permitted 'outside of a marked bay' if no parking were permitted at all? And if parking were not permitted at all, how could a parking contract even exist to be entered into?!

Indeed I have. MFG is the parent company and unfortunately have outsourced their customer service team to India. Let's just say the level of service is below par and they kept deferring me to Euro Car Parks, as they are unable to assist with the matter.

Maybe some of these guys would be able to help... https://www.motorfuelgroup.com/leadership-team/

There is no sign on the jet wash to indicate that time can be extended by giving your registration in-store. There may be signs elsewhere, but I would argue they can easily be overlooked, as they are not in the most obvious of places.

Are you sure? Page 4 of the first rejection and Page 3 of the second rejection show a sign which seems to be affixed to the 'glass panel' the typically surrounds a jet wash bay.

To be clear, I'm not meaning to be argumentative but you will need to be very clear on all of the circumstances in the instance this ends up in court. For example, if they're showing an picture from a different site the court would take a dim view, but if you say there isn't/wasn't one and its provable there was, that will also be a problem.

--

I would agree that it looks like they are willing to accept it as a keying error - but since there wasn't a keying error that would seem odd and I wouldn't simply take them at their word. If the online portal now also shows £20 I guess you'd probably be fine.

That said if there was a keying error by the attendant in the store (since it doesn't sound like a self serve situation) then how could you possibly be on the hook for any amount of money? The BPA guidance also says up to £20 for admin costs, I wonder if it really cost them £20 to reply to a couple of appeals with boilerplate/inaccurate letters? Their willingness to drop the cost would seem like they're clutching at straws to get something out of you.

You have a choice - accept the mugs discount - or fight them all the way for what is clearly an unreasonable charge.

Further to my response above, it seems like the change to £20 is them using the BPA rule where they can cancel a charge and issue an up to £20 admin fee in instances of keying errors.

Was the VRM keyed erroneously? Or not at all?

If the latter, this would seem like a weird thing for them to do but I don't know much about this "rule".

Personally I wouldn't pay a penny and would fight them all the way, but if you do choose to pay the £20 you should clarify with them first that this will bring an end to proceedings.

99% of people on r/legaladvice are morons - I wouldn't worry what they have to say. b789 and others here are the most informed the internet has to offer and will offer you the best advice if you post the required docs/info. Will be useful to know what you've admitted to.

P.S. I'm sorry for your personal loss - I can't imagine how difficult that must be.

5. You make the point that either the driver or the Keeper can defend the action in court - Will this be stated on any future correspondence concerning County Court proceedings?

Finally, the driver is keen to ignore the Demand and would welcome ongoing assistance from your good selves going forward but does not wish any burden to fall on the keeper. Best Regards - Purbeckfossil

I think b789 has covered all your points, perhaps except this one which was based on something I said.

It gets quite messy when we (as we generally need to) talk about the driver and the keeper without being clear on who you/they are - so this is a tricky one to address to an extent.

If court papers are issued, and thus far correspondence has been directed at the keeper, so too would the court papers and thus the keeper would have to respond (and attend a hearing if necessary).

Hypothetically, if this were a situation where you were the driver and not the keeper - and given this is one of the very rare NtKs where the liability actually can be transferred with PoFA, and that you specifically are aiming to avoid any burden on the keeper - it might actually be a rare situation where it is sensible for the keeper to identify the driver if you intend to fight it.


@b789 @DWMB2 would you agree or am I drunk?

Do you have the original Notice to Keeper for any of them?

The operator is IPC so the "independent" appeals service is IAS. You can't appeal to POPLA which is the equivalent for BPA members.