Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, first time poster on FTLA, long time user of Pepipoo (from the old days).

Here's another first for me - actually receiving court papers from a PPC!

Here is the cover page.  The rest is template copy.  I understand that the blurb is usually included when assessing a PCN/NTO but in this case we're not going to be pulling apart the court's small print, right?




I will of course go into the details, but I understand at this point that I should just make a placeholder response to the letter, and perhaps also change it to a local court, is this right?



Thank you for the advice, it's appreciated.

Thanks, I have submitted a SAR and will go through the MCOL process presently.  Just to check; when is the point at which I can apply to have it transferred to a local court?  I don't want to miss this opportunity as this seems like quite a powerful card to play.

  I don't want to miss this opportunity as this seems like quite a powerful card to play.

In what way? Their evidence would be submitted in writing and the claimant won't be represented wherever the case is heard.

Getting to the court on time booted and suited makes not a jot of difference to outcomes IMO, it's evidence which decides the matter. And playing silly b*****s with time frames and leaving submissions until the last minute are tactics more likely to trip up the unwary respondent than a firm like DCB Legal. Where, as regards actions which you're required to take, one time frame is contingent upon another e.g. submitting a defence being contingent upon acknowledging service etc. then if one wants to maximise the time to assemble evidence it makes sense to delay until near a time limit, but knowing why you're doing something and whether it offers you any advantage is necessary. But this is not council procedures and you're not going to time-out or trip up anyone other than possibly yourself.

I must ask: why have you submitted a SAR now? The obvious answer would be that you did not do this at the Letter of Claim stage. Which begs the question why?

This isn't a game and if all you've done to date is to ignore the creditor and the creditor's legal reps then your actions are likely to be seen as unreasonable by the court. 

My comments should be seen in the context of the OP's statement:

I don't want to miss this opportunity as this seems like quite a powerful card to play.

I think my warning is apposite. This is not a game, cards or otherwise.

In addition, they should be aware - as is often said on this forum - that unreasonable behaviour could lead to higher than normal costs being awarded against them. So far the OP would seem to fall into this category because they have ignored all notices and the letter of claim. They should be aware how many debits they've already clocked up as I hope this would lead them to not play brinkmanship with procedure because if they come unstuck the results could be costly.

CONTACT 1

The first contact was a NTK as no PCN was ever found on the car.  Here is the NTK:





The circumstances:

This was a place of work.  The driver was employed at this university at the time, and had permission to park.  Permission was granted by means of the car reg being on a database, which it was at the time.  However, the standard parking places were all full, and the employer had given permission to park outside standard parking places in this situation.  Many employees did this all the time, as parking was often tight.  However this was the first time a PPC had actually ticketed them, which surprised everyone.  The ticket it appears is for causing an obstruction.

I did request photos etc. and made a POPLA appeal, which was not accepted.  I will post all of this up later today.

Thanks

*EDIT*  In the original thread, it was pointed out that the dates are useful.  The dates from the top of the document are:

Date of event: 21/11/2022 10:50

Date issued: 21/12/2022 12:10

POPLA appeal

I'm afraid I do not have the specific appeal that I submitted - apologies.  However the "adjudicator" does state exactly what my appeal was and the evidence as so:

- No PCN was affixed.  NTK was the first document received.  Picture from the PPC's appeal website shows no PCN attached
- Rejection letter gives 1 day to pay the reduced rate.  Along with no PCN issued, this means no reasonable time period was ever given to pay the original sum
- Driver was an employee who was given specific allowance to park in that spot by their employer

Here is the POPLA rejection:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
xxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for obstructive parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They say the driver was an employee of St Mary’s University and therefore had permission to park. • They explain that the permission is not granted by a permit but on a database. • They say that the vehicle registration will show as valid. • They explain that no parking charge was affixed to the vehicle, which can be proven by the parking operator’s images. • They say that the Notice to Keeper does not offer the opportunity to pay the reduced amount. • They explain that the appeal rejection is flawed as it advises the amount could be paid by 10.01 which was issued by email. They say that it is likely someone would not check their email for 48 hours or more. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: 1. Screenshot of the parking operator’s website. 2. Copy of the notice to keeper. 3. Copy of the rejection of their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the appellant is appealing as the keeper of the vehicle. I consider the appellant has not been identified as the driver of the vehicle. As such, I will be considering the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle. For the Registered Keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the parking operator must follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the registered keeper has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the parking operator has met POFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signs in place set out the terms and conditions of this contract. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs in place in the car park, which state: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £70 will be issued in the following circumstances: Obstructive parking.” The parking operator has provided photos of the appellant’s vehicle, which demonstrates the vehicle was parked causing an obstruction. It appears a contract between the driver and the parking operator was formed, and the parking operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. • They say the driver was an employee of St Mary’s University and therefore had permission to park. • They explain that the permission is not granted by a permit but on a database. • They say that the vehicle registration will show as valid. While I appreciate these comments, the parking charge was not issued regarding the vehicle not having a permit. However, it was issued as the vehicle was parked causing an obstruction. Having reviewed the images provided, the vehicle had parked on a pavement, which could cause obstruction to oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge was issued correctly. • They explain that no parking charge was affixed to the vehicle, which can be proven by the parking operator’s images. I have reviewed the images provided, I am satisfied the parking charge was affixed to the vehicle, which advises the driver had 14 days to pay the reduced parking charge. They say that the Notice to Keeper does not offer the opportunity to pay the reduced amount. As mentioned above, the reduced amount is applicable for the first 14 days. There is no requirement for the reduced amount to be offered beyond the 14 days. • They explain that the appeal rejection is flawed as it advises the amount could be paid by 10.01 which was issued by email. They say that it is likely someone would not check their email for 48 hours or more. I can see from the evidence provided, the parking operator has acknowledged the one day to pay the reduced fee was in error and would have permitted the reduced fee to be paid. Furthermore, there is no requirement to offer the reduced amount after the 14 days. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the appellant broke them by obstructive parking. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

Before we get into any of the details of the above:

the employer had given permission to park outside standard parking places in this situation.

This is noteworthy. Where has your employer been in all of this process?

Are they aware that one of their employees is being sued by the parking company they hired to manage parking on their land, for parking in a space that they had given them express permission to park in?

Did you get this permission in writing?

I guess the question is that as the person was an employee, with permission, what material loss has their been?

They aren't suing for a material loss on the landowner's part. They are suing on the basis that they claim the driver entered into a contract with them through which they agreed to pay £100 for parking, and that £100 hasn't been paid.

Definitely speak to the former employer.

Do you have any photos of the signage? That it's an employees-only car park means the signage may well be forbidding...