-
Hi all,
Hope you're well. Was looking for some advice. I received a parking ticket at Embassy Gardens which is notoriously poorly sign posted. The car was parked in a space with absolutely no signage. There was nothing to suggest that parking there was not allowed as there were no signs, no painted lines. Parking was paid for the allotted time with many other cars parked here. An appeal was sent a rejected on the basis that there were tiny signs which were neither clear nor close to where the vehicle was parked indicating a restriction.
A little bit of background on the appeal, the ticket was issued late September and the initial appeal was lodged 5 days after the ticket was issued and no response was received. My company then received a letter at the end of November and I once again appealed on the basis that they did not respond to my initial appeal within a reasonable timeframe and therefore should cancel the frivolous ticket. They have responded to that appeal a full 22 days later.
From the advice in the pinned thread is to not bother appealing to the IAS and I'm seeing online in other places too that it is a waste of time as they will just reject anyway. What should I do now?
What should I advise the lease company regarding this Parking Charge? -
-
Please read this and then show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was received.
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
You mention "My company then received a letter at the end of November and I once again appealed...". Was the NtK addressed to the company or you as a named individual?
If it was addressed to the company because the company is the Registered Keeper (RK), in what capacity did you appeal? Has the driver been identified, inadvertently or otherwise? PCM have no idea who the driver is unless the Keeper (unless it is a company which cannot be the driver) has nabbed it to them.
So, please show the original NtK (not a reminder) showing all dates and time and confirm who it was addressed to and what was put in the appeal.
-
-
Date of original ticket 26th September and appeal was done 1st October:Quote
Dear Sir/Madam
I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable. There was no clear signage to indicate a parking restriction. 4 hours of parking were paid for as evidenced thus the alleged contravention did not occur.
Further, I understand you do not own the land and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
Should you fail to cancel this Parking Notice immediately, I require the following information in order to assess the validity of your claim:
1. What is the full legal identity of the landowner whom you claim to be contracted by?
2. As you are not the landowner, please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that PCM (UK) Ltd. have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in your own name or on behalf of the landowner.
3. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
4. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
If you refuse to provide the information requested above, please confirm that you will cancel the charge. If you choose to reject this challenge, please provide me with a POPLA code so I can escalate the matter.
Please also note I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.
It has also been noted that you are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice in the use of the term PCN, which was not mentioned in any of your signs. Under section 14 ‘Misrepresentation of Authority’ the BPA clearly states:
14.3 The abbreviation ‘PCN’ is also used to mean a ‘penalty charge notice’ in the regulated environment. Unless you have previously defined a PCN as a ‘parking charge notice’ on your signs and notices, you must avoid using the term ‘PCN’ to avoid confusing drivers about the nature of your parking enforcement
Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response advising of the cancellation of this bogus parking charge within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.
I received an automated email confirming receipt of the appeal but no response, instead a letter was sent to the office on 28th November which I appealed with the following:QuoteDear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in reference to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) PCXXXXXX, which was issued on 26/09/24. I submitted an appeal for this parking charge on 01/10/24, and I received confirmation from your company that my appeal had been received on 01/10/24.
However, despite the passage of considerable time, I have not received any communication from you regarding the outcome of my appeal. Instead, I have now received a further notice via post dated 26/11/24, which appears to be a reminder or further demand for payment.
As per the guidelines set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the codes of practice of your industry’s governing bodies, including the British Parking Association (BPA) or the International Parking Community (IPC), parking operators are required to respond to appeals within a reasonable time frame (usually within 14 days).
Since I submitted my appeal on 01/10/24, it is my understanding that I should have received a decision within the prescribed period. The failure to respond within this time frame, combined with the sending of a new notice after my appeal, constitutes a failure to process my appeal in accordance with the rules set out by the governing bodies.
In light of this, I respectfully request that you review my case once again, taking into account the timeline for responding to appeals, and confirm the outcome of my appeal. Furthermore, I ask that you cancel this PCN, as it seems you have not followed the correct procedure in handling my appeal and there is no basis for the ticket to be issued due to lack of signage where the alleged contravention occurred.
If you do not uphold this request, I would appreciate your written explanation, and I will be escalating the matter to an independent appeals service such as POPLA or IAS.
I look forward to receiving your response within the next 14 days.
And finally the rejection wad dated 27th December.
-
-
You haven't answered my question about who is the PCN addressed to? Is it addressed to a company or an individual. If to a company, did you respond as the company or the individual?
Where is the original Notice to Driver (NtD) that was affixed to the vehicle?
Who gave you that appeal template? In it you state: "It has also been noted that you are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice... blah blah blah" Unfortunately, PCM are IPC members and have nothing to do with the BPA. Dead give away that the appellant has no idea what they are doing.
-
-
That PCN was easily appealed if you'd used their failure to comply with the requirements of PoFA for the following reason:
Key Dates:• Notice to Driver (NtD): Issued on 26/09/2024.
• Notice to Keeper (NtK): Posted on 26/11/2024, given on 28/11/2024.
PoFA Requirements:Under Paragraph 8(5) of PoFA, when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has already been issued, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be served no earlier than 28 days and no later than 56 days after the contravention date.• The contravention date (date of parking) is 26/09/2024.
• The NtK was posted on 26/11/2024 (61 days after the contravention date).
This timeline clearly exceeds the 56-day limit for serving the Notice to Keeper.
Conclusion:
PoFA compliance was not met. The NtK was issued too late to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA 2012. This makes the NtK invalid for transferring liability from the driver to the keeper. Therefore, the parking company cannot pursue the registered keeper for the parking charge unless they can prove that the keeper was the driver. They can't unless the Keeper identifies the driver, inadvertently or otherwise.
Hence my questions about who was the NtK addressed to and who and in what capacity did you appeal? -
-
It was addressed to the company who are the leaseholders. My appeal was sent as the keeper of the vehicle. The rejection was addressed to me.
Apologies, didn't realise the ins and outs of who is registered where and what it meant but understand now that PCM are with IPC.
On the second appeal I did mention their failure to respond within POFA time lines and still got rejected.
At no point in either of my communications to them did I ever identify the driver of the vehicle and only ever corresponded as the keeper of the vehicle. -
-
The Keeper is the person or company named on the V5C. Is the V5C in the name of a company or is it in your name? This distinction is important.
If the Keeper is a company and the PCN is not PoFA compliant, then only the unknown driver can be liable. If the Keeper is a company, PCM cannot turn around and claim that the keeper must be the driver because a company cannot be a driver.
If you're suggesting that the vehicle is leased, then there is no way you can be the Keeper. The lease company is the Keeper and you or your company are the Hirer.
So, are you the Hirer or is the Hirer the company. I'm just trying to get to there bottom of this and it's a bit like pulling teeth right now. -
-
The letter as attached above was addressed to my company. The registered owner of the vehicle is the leasing company as per the V5C. PCM addressed the NtK to my company (I'm guessing after they wrote to the leasing company).
-
-
My sincerest apologies, I'm trying to answer your questions the best I can, I'm not familiar with all of the terms so will explain the best I can.
The lease company are the owners of the vehicle. My company is the leasee. I work for the company and in my appeal identified as the keeper of the vehicle and requested to have all correspondence sent to me so as to avoid any potential admin charges from the leasing Company.
Hope I've covered everything there. Please let me know if I haven't. -
-
The lease company can absolve themselves completely as long as they transferred liability to the Hirer as required under PoFA. If they have followed the instructions in the PCN on transferring their liability, then they are out of the picture and PCM cannot later come back to the to demand payment.
They have to transfer liability by following the requirements of PoFA Paragraph 13(2) which states:QuoteThe creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
As long as the lease company has done that, that is the end of the matter as far as they are concerned.
Next, in order to be able to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Hirer, PCM must follow the requirements of PoFA Paragraph 14(2). The main thing that every operator fails to do is is comply with sub section (a) which states:Quotethe creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
So, did the Hirer (your company) receive copies of the following documents together with the Notice to Hirer (NtH):1. A copy of the original NtK that was sent to the else company.
2. A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
3. A copy of the hire agreement; and
4. A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
So, that is copies of 4 separate document copies that should have been given together with the NtH. Were they? I doubt it.
So, when you appealed, did you do so as the representative of the Hirer or did you name yourself as the Hirer when in fact it should have been in the name of the company?
Have you in any way compromised your best defence by making an appeal on the wrong basis in your own name? Does PCM know the identity of the driver? -
-
The only communication I've had with them is the two emails in my earlier post in one which I refer to myself as the keeper. The only thing sent to my company was the letter addressed to the Hirer.
I only referred to myself as the keeper of the vehicle once but at no point have made any mention to the identity of the driver. -
-
OK. You should tell the lease company that as long as they transferred liability according to the operators instructions in the NtK, they are no longer liable and your company is now liable.
What you are now waiting to see is if/when PCM try to litigate for the alleged debt. If/when they issue a claim, it is easily defended and they will have their claim struck out or will discontinue before any hearing.
Nothing else you can do for now except to ignore all debt collector letters. The debt collectors are powerless to do anything as they are not a party to the contract that the unknown driver breached. Ignore them. We do not need to see or know about their useless letters.
If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and show us. An N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC is likely to follow and we will provide a suitable defence. -
-
So the Letter of Claim has now come through:
https://ibb.co/yndCC9gY
How should I respond to this?
Many thanks. -
-
Quote
If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and show us. An N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC is likely to follow and we will provide a suitable defence.
-
-
Apologies, the link didn't show, so edited post.
-