Free Traffic Legal Advice

At ** on ** the driver entered the car park and left at *** having paid £**/not paid etc.

OP, pl just tell us what happened. Then we can look at 'why' after we know the 'what'.

Pl reinstate everything in the PCN other than personal details.

If the matter does get to court, what will matter is what happened in practice, not what could have happened in theory. So far, we don't know what actually happened.

It is entirely plausible that the company behind the app will have every single event timestamped. A SAR might get those, if they are of any benefit at all, if the company plays ball with the UK or EU GDPR legislation...

Thanks all for the responses so far. Regarding 'case law', poor choice of wording on my part considering this is a legal forum - I'm merely suggesting an extra appeal point that may or may not be successful, a brief search around hasn't shown up any instances of people using the time taken to register for an app as an appeal point before (maybe there's a reason why!).

I'll quieten down and leave it to the experts from here on out; as requested a less redacted letter is attached, vehicle is a short term hire car, no sticker left on windscreen, evidential image of the sign attached too (it's quite high...).

Don't have exact timings as there's no ANPR etc, but images in the evidence pack range from 13:45:59 to 13:56:34 (including lots of photos of the vehicles blank windscreen, can't see the VIN in it if that matters? example attached).

After parking shortly prior to the timestamp in the first image, the driver downloaded the app in question, signed up for an account, but was unable to successfully pay for parking. This is because they had rejected the apps 'precise location' request as they felt this was an invasion of their privacy (GDPR necessity etc etc), especially as a location code is provided on the sign (and inputable into the app). They have a screen recording of the app malfunctioning without this permission, timestamped at 13:55 (ie. during the evidential period). The driver departed later that day.

On a subsequent day, the driver of the vehicle parked in the same area, and attempted to use the app; again it malfunctioned without the 'precise location' permission but they decided to part with their privacy to avoid getting a parking ticket; ironic really. May be a stretch but potentially it shows a genuine attempt to pay was made considering a driver later did for that vehicle?

Thanks





[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

…vehicle is a short term hire car, no sticker left on windscreen…

This is now becoming convoluted. In your opening post, you stated:

Recently the recipient of a parking ticket where they have evidence of my vehicle…

Call me weird, but (as the keeper)

If the vehicle was hired, who is the NtK addressed to? Has the hire company simply forwarded the NtK to you? Can you see why this is now confusing?

In 99.99% of PCNs issued to hire/lease vehicles, they are what are known as “golden tickets” because the PPCs fail to follow the strict requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer… as long as the hirer does not identify the driver.

So, because you now mention that the vehicle was a hire car, that would mean that the original NtK would have been sent to the hire company who are usually the registered keeper. Please tell us who is the NtK you have shown addressed to. The hire company as the keeper or the hirer, in which case it is an NtH.

Presumably I should expect a NtH in the post later this week? Will report back.

Your hire firm should name you as the hirer, leading to you receiving a notice to hirer in due course, yes.

I'm not sure why you believe the above prevents the hire company from naming the OP as the hirer.

Whether that leads to the hire company being able to recover the charge from him is another matter (it almost certainly doesn't, given how often all parties involved usually misunderstand and mi's-apply the relevant legislation).

Edit: Just seen your edit. I agree that the parking company will be unlikely to be able to hold the OP liable, but the hire company are likely to name him as the hirer, and he is likely to receive a notice in his capacity as hirer.

I'm not disagreeing with that. If the OP receives a notice in his name he can appeal on the basis that he has no liability for the matter.

I'm not sure how any of this runs at odds with what I said, which is that if the company name the OP as the hirer, the parking company are likely to write to him.