Hi All,
I received a PCN today for not being parked wholly in a bay. Do I have any leg to stand on? Where do I go from here?
https://imgur.com/a/XwhZ5FKRegards,
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
As a registered keeper I have recently received a similar PCN in the Swansea area. I would advise to await advice from more senior and experienced members. In the meantime it may be worth looking at my thread to see if there is any useful info for you.
Hi All,
I received a PCN today for not being parked wholly in a bay. Do I have any leg to stand on? Where do I go from here?
https://imgur.com/a/XwhZ5FK
Regards,
Of course you have a leg to stand on. First of all, was there a reason why the driver parked on the hashed area of the bay? Was this a disabled bay/parent-child bay or was the one adjacent to it?
For now, follow this advice:
Easy one to deal,with... as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
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.
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. Premier Park 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. Premier Park have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Thank you Sander and b789, I have now appealed and shall await the response. I'll keep this thread update as I hear more.
Regards.
Errr... did you not read this bit?...
First of all, was there a reason why the driver parked on the hashed area of the bay? Was this a disabled bay/parent-child bay or was the one adjacent to it?
Sorry, completely overlooked that bit. This was not a disabled bay/parent-child bay, but I do believe there was one adjacent to it.
Is that a metal post within the boundary of the parking bay?
I'm not 100% sure but looking on google maps image capture from 2023 they are outside the parking bay on the footpath.
This is the response I received back.
Dear XXX,
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was not parked fully within a bay, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; you can either pay or appeal to POPLA - you cannot do both:
Not unexpected. No initial appeal will ever be accepted by them. There is no money in it for them.
You have 33 days (5 days for service + 28 days) from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.
Before we do that, I suggest. you do a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals and see if you can put something together yourself and show us before you do anything so we can make sure it is all correct before submitting.
The reasons that the NtK is not PoFA compliant is because it does not fully comply with all the requirements of
PoFA 2012, namely paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i).
Just to update this thread. I ended up paying in the end. I didn't think I could build up a strong enough case if this went to court.
Sorry for the boring outcome.
No one who follows the advice given here ever pays a penny to Premier Park. You have wasted your money and funded the scammers and so you become a part of the problem.
The gullible tree is ripe with low-hanging fruit today.
Wow x 1
View List