Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,
Looking for some advice pls.  I received the below Parking ticket from a private Parking management company on Woodgrange road E7 with the reason of Vehicle not pre-authorised (no-e-Permit) .

Initially I was going to ignore this as these Parking tickets aren't enforceable however speaking to a friend he advised seeking advice because these private parking companies employ bailiffs, CCJ's and can also potentially affect my credit score.  Does anyone know how I can navigate this to get the parking ticket cancelled officially from the parking management company.





[IMAGE REMOVED]

Initially I was going to ignore this as these Parking tickets aren't enforceable however speaking to a friend he advised seeking advice because these private parking companies employ bailiffs, CCJ's and can also potentially affect my credit score.  Does anyone know how I can navigate this to get the parking ticket cancelled officially from the parking management company.

Obviously, we need to see the PCN in order to fully advise properly. However, you have raised few points that indicate a lack of understanding of the process.

We have not advised anyone to simply ignore a PCN since 2012 when PoFA was introduced. “Parking tickets” are certainly enforceable. It just depends against who. The driver or the keeper? Are you aware of the distinction between the two in terms of civil law?

Also, these firms do not simply “employ bailiffs”, issue CCJs nor affect your credit score. No one can simply employ a bailiff. No one can come knocking at your door, issue a CCJ or affect your credit score without going through a lengthy legal process. I suggest you do some research of your own before jumping to the wrong conclusions.

The advice we dispense here will not lead to you getting a CCJ and, in the extremely remote chance you were unfortunate enough to actually get to the stage  of a hearing to decide whether you owed a debt to the PPC and your defence was not accepted by a judge, any judgment against you is likely to for less than the original claim and as long as it was paid, in full, within 28 days of the judgment, would not appear not have any effect on your credit score.

And what was the background or reason the driver parked there? The PCN Notice to Keeper (NtK) only alleges that the vehicle was parked or stopped for less than 3 minutes.

What the signs with the terms and conditions say is crucial to any appeal or defence. There does not appear to have been any consideration period allowed if any of the terms are not prohibitory.

Can it definitively be shown that the driver "left" the car park without reading any signs? Do the additional photos cover a longer period than that shown on the NtK?

There is no "offer" in that sign. There is no mention of parking. There is no mention of how a permit can be obtained. There cannot have been any contract.

As you are dealing with an IPC member company, this is not going to succeed at any appeal stage. The only way this will be won is if they decide to pursue you through the courts for the alleged debt.

They may never bother to take it all the way to court as they would receive a spanking due to their CRA breaches and their lack of contract. That does not mean that they are not going to try and scare you into paying into their scam with debt collector letters.

DRAs are powerless to do anything and are employed to simply try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into capitulating and paying into their scam. They can be safely ignored.

The way forward as I see it is to make a simple appeal as the keeper, which will be rejected. In the appeal, you deny any liability for the charge, pointing out the deficiencies and you also warn them that if they do not cancel the PCN, they should proceed directly to issuing a claim in the county court where you will vigorously defend and claim. You do not wish to participate the kangaroo court IAS secondary appeal and they must not pass your data to any third party DRA.

They are likely to ignore it all but they are now n notice that they do not have your permission to pass your data on otherwise they will be in breach of your GDPR and then liable to damages. We do want them to issue a claim as that is the only way this is put to bed.

In the very worst case scenario, there is a minute risk that should it proceed all the way to a hearing and your defence was not accepted by the judge, you would be liable for around ~£200 max, which if paid within 28 days of judgement has no effect on your credit file and is completely expunged fro the record. So, no risk of a CCJ on your file.

The most likely outcome is that they try and scare you into paying which you ignore. They then have to decide whether to litigate and that is a big risk for them. It will cost them to file a claim, which will be easily defended. The most likely outcome once the defence is filed is they either discontinue before they have to pay the hearing fee or that their claim is struck out.

It is for you to decide how you want to proceed. The advice is to appeal in the first instance to  NPM and then wait and see what they decide to do after they reject the appeal.

This is what I suggest you put in your appeal:

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline to identify the driver. I deny that I owe any debt and challenge the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number] issued on [Date] at [Location], in which you allege that the driver is liable to pay a parking charge to you, National Parking Management Ltd, as the creditor.

The driver has not breached any contract as the signs at the location do not make any offer. The driver took less than 4 minutes to consider the terms and decided to leave. Therefore, I suggest that the PCN be cancelled immediately.

I do not wish to engage in a secondary appeal through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), as their reputation as a biased and non-independent body makes it a waste of time for all parties involved. Any offer of such an appeal will be disregarded.

Please take careful note, as this appeal will be used in evidence should this dispute ever reach court. If you refuse to cancel the PCN, there must be no passing or transfer of my details to a third-party debt recovery agent (DRA). Instead, you should issue a claim for the alleged debt in the County Court, where I will vigorously defend myself and you can expect a thorough examination by the judge.

Furthermore, any deviation from this requested path, including involving a third party for debt collection, will be considered harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a breach of GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018. Such actions may result in a Part 20 counterclaim against you for any distress and inconvenience caused by these breaches.

The vehicle was parked for less than four minutes and the driver was out of view for less than what, two minutes? This brief duration can be argued as insufficient to form a contract, particularly if the driver was merely looking for a sign and checking the parking terms and conditions.

For a parking contract to be valid, there must be clear terms displayed and the driver must have had a reasonable opportunity to read and understand these terms before deciding to accept them. If the driver was looking for signage and decided to leave, no contract was formed.

The burden of proof is on NPM to prove that a contract was formed and breached. The still images do not conclusively show the driver ignoring or accepting the parking terms. NPM needs to prove that the signage was visible, clear, and that the driver had adequate time to read and understand the terms.

The sign shown states that vehicles must be registered with a valid NPM E-Permit but does not provide information on how to obtain such a permit. Without this information, it is impossible for a driver to comply with the terms.

There is no explicit offer of parking on the sign. An offer must be clear and unequivocal, detailing what is being offered and the terms of that offer. The sign only states conditions for having a permit without making an explicit offer for parking.

For a contract to be formed, there must be a clear offer that can be accepted. In this case, the sign fails to make an offer that the driver can accept. It merely imposes a condition (having an NPM E-Permit) without providing a way to meet that condition or explaining the terms under which parking is allowed.

The absence of instructions on how to obtain the required permit means that a driver cannot reasonably comply with the terms, further undermining the formation of a contract.

Without a clear offer, there can be no acceptance, and thus no consideration (something of value exchanged between the parties). Additionally, the intention to create any legal obligation is doubtful when the terms are not clearly communicated.

So, the CCTV images of the unknown driver "disappearing" for a few minutes prove nothing.

I don't disagree. However, the keeper should not identify the driver. Any appeal should be as the keeper. A still from CCTV footage proves nothing.

For the OP, in the UK, the use of CCTV by private companies is governed by several regulations and guidelines, primarily focusing on data protection and privacy. The key legislation and guidelines include the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Code of Practice (CoP) for surveillance cameras.

Under GDPR, CCTV data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner. This means that individuals must be informed about the use of CCTV and the purposes for which the footage is being collected and processed. CCTV footage can only be used for the specific purposes for which it was collected. For example, if CCTV is installed for security purposes, it should not be used for other purposes without proper justification and notification. Is there any indication what the exact purpose of the CCTV is for?

As far as the ICO is concerned, clear and prominent signs must be placed to inform individuals that they are being recorded by CCTV. The signs should include details of the purpose of the surveillance and contact information for the data controller. The use of CCTV must be justified by a legitimate aim, such as crime prevention or ensuring safety. Do those signs comply?

The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (by the Home Office) states that the use of surveillance cameras must be for legitimate purposes, such as public safety or crime prevention. The use of surveillance cameras should be transparent, and the public should be made aware of who is operating the cameras and for what purpose. Is that apparent at the location?

Are there clear and visible signs informing drivers that CCTV is in operation? The signs should state the purpose of the surveillance, such as enforcing parking rules. Do the signs adequately inform of such use?

The CCTV footage should only be used for the purpose of monitoring parking compliance and not for unrelated purposes. Do the signs inform individuals about the use of CCTV and how the footage will be used? They should also include details on how to contact the NPM for more information. Do they?

Has NPM complied with all the relevant regulations on CCTV use? NPM must ensure that their CCTV system is used transparently, fairly, and for a legitimate purpose. Clear signage must be in place, individuals must be informed about the use and purpose of CCTV and the footage must be handled in accordance with data protection laws. Has NPM adhered to all these regulations?

Which is why the OP should submit the appeal suggested above. Everything else is for use later, should it ever get to that stage (doubtful).