Good evening, I am looking for some advice. I had to stop my car for a brief period, approximately 1 minute on the Uxbridge Industrial Estate as I had a nosebleed and needed to get a tissue. I received a Parking Charge Notice from Private Parking Solutions Ltd. When I checked the pictures provided showing the car stationary for 35 seconds. Today I went back to check the signs. The signs are placed sideways and not clearly visible/readable when you are driving from the direction I was driving from. You have to stop your car, if you want to read the signs. Please can you advise what can I do in this case? Should I just pay the fine or is there a way of challenging this? Many thanks in advance
Welcome. You have not received any "fine". If you can show me that word anywhere in the paperwork, I will personally give you £100.
You have received a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. No one receiving advice here pays a penny to these scammers.
Of course you challenge this, all the way to the ultimate dispute resolution service, the county court if necessary. It is easy and you will learn a thing or two in the process. There is no danger to your credit record or a CCJ.
PPS are a firm of ex-clamper thugs that rely on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree paying them out of ignorance. Anyone receiving advice here is not low-hanging fruit anymore.
For now, please show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received. All the information you need on how to post images is here:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guideI say this with a 99.9% probability that the most likely outcome of this will be a claim issued and then defended with advice from here and it will eventually be discontinued early next year.
Hi, thank you for your quick reply. Please see attached the Parking Charge Notice I received. Many thanks
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
As a matter of interest, is the driver still in the vehicle in that photo? Can you check on the appeal website if they have any other evidential photos and, if so, what is the time span between the earliest photo and the last photo.
There is a failure in the NtK of PoFA 9(2)(a) as there is no specified period of parking. By failing to specify the period of parking in the NtK , they cannot hold the keeper liable. They have no idea of the drivers identity and there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
Also, they have breached the new
Single Code of Practice (SCoP) section 2.9, 2.19, 2.24, 5.0, 5.1, 7.2, Annex B and Annex B1.
Any initial appeal to PPS is going to be rejected. However, an appeal rejection will then give you a POPLA code where you can try a stronger appeal.
For now, this is the stock appeal for this PCN. Any appeal must be as the Keeper only:
I 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.
Your Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued incorrectly and is in breach of the new Single Code of Practice (SCoP) at sections 2.9, 2.19, 2.24, 5.0, 5.1, 7.2, Annex B and Annex B1 as no consideration period has been taken into account.
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. PPS 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. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Thank you, the driver was in the car and lights were on. The first picture was taken at 10:40:04 and the last at 10:40:36. I'm attaching the photos from their website,the last photo I don't even know in which part of that industrial estate was taken. I also got a video showing what you can see if you are driving on that road as a proof about the signs.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
The pictures from their website
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
So the entirety of the evidence photos on their website span a period of less than 30 seconds?
If they used that to try and argue in court that the vehicle formed a binding contract to park they would seem to be doomed by their own evidence!
Even if a contract would otherwise have been formed (which will be denied) a nosebleed would seem to constitute a situation outside of your control which could be used to argue frustration of contract. But frankly, the much stronger argument is that no contract can have been formed.
If you're nearby, photos of the signage (and any lack, or lack of prominence, thereof) would be useful.
And some more pictures. The photo attached to my first reply is from the area I don't believe I driven through. Thank you
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
I don't think I can post a video here. I have got a video evidence that the signs are not clearly visible/readable when you are driving as they are placed sideways. Maybe there is a sign somewhere else on the estate wich is clearly visible but not on that side from were I wad coming from.
I don't think I can post a video here.
You'd need to use a third party like YouTube or Google Drive for that.
I hope you can see the video. Thank you
The video requires permission to access.
Irrespective of that, the sign shown is unable to form a contract. It offers nothing that can be accepted for consideration.
There is no contract to be bound by.
If POPLA don’t accept that the PCN has been issued incorrectly, then this wouldn’t stand a chance in the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small claims track of the county court.
Of course they would never let it get as far as a hearing as they’d be in for a spanking. They are hoping that you will capitulate if the initiate litigation and if you don’t, they will discontinue and move on in search of lower-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.
Thank you, I tried to change the settings on the video but is not working.
I will send PPS an appeal, with the text you advised me earlier on and hope for the best.
Thank you again
They're fairly likely to reject, but that is not indicative of the quality of your arguments.
As b789 and I have both said, you have the main argument that no contract can have been formed, both due to the duration of the stop, and the signage not being capable of forming a contract. Then you have the 'even if' argument, that even if a contract had been formed, this would have been frustrated due to a nosebleed forcing the driver to stop.
Disagree x 1
View List