Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome to FTLA.
To help us provide the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

In addition to what you've shared it would be useful to see:

• The Notice to Driver that was on the windscreen
• Photos of the signage at the site, including ones showing their layout and prominence
• If any appeal has thus far been submitted

It would be ideal if your friend could post here himself. Where people post on behalf of someone they know, it often has a tendency to turn into Chinese Whispers.

Welcome to FTLA.
To help us provide the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

In addition to what you've shared it would be useful to see:

• The Notice to Driver that was on the windscreen
• Photos of the signage at the site, including ones showing their layout and prominence
• If any appeal has thus far been submitted

It would be ideal if your friend could post here himself. Where people post on behalf of someone they know, it often has a tendency to turn into Chinese Whispers.

No appeal has been submitted yet but he did call them up and identify himself as the registered keeper, asking them for the original notice which was later found.

Unfortunately google maps doesn't show the signage in detail nor does it go further into the estate. On google maps I can barely make out it says "PRIVATE LAND PERMIT HOLDERS" on the sign into the road.

There was no notice on the windscreen. The NTK was received in the post, the entry and exit times were caught on ANPR. The driver stayed in the car for around 26 minutes then left.

I will upload the first notice shortly, I was told it was received sometime in January. Let me know if this is not enough information to make an appeal, I will let him know as he has left it quite late.

At risk of repeating myself:

It would be ideal if your friend could post here himself. Where people post on behalf of someone they know, it often has a tendency to turn into Chinese Whispers.

The original notice will hopefully bring some clarity.

Why have you removed the reminder notice that you originally posted? Also, why have you redacted the times on the NtK?

You only need to redact your personal details, the PCN number and the VRM. Everything else needs to be visible. In this instance, the PCN reminder needs to be seen because of the misleading wording on it.

Also show the back of the notices too.

The NtK says there are additional images available at https://capitalcarparkcontrol.co.uk so please check and tell/show us what they have.

This NtK is a complete shambles, failing both PoFA and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in multiple ways.

The NtK clearly states: “Liability for the Parking Charge Notice lies with the vehicle displayed below” which is legally meaningless. A vehicle cannot be liable. Liability can only fall on an individual (driver or, under PoFA, the Keeper if compliant).

This wording , because of its prominence, fundamentally undermines any attempt to transfer liability to the Keeper.

PoFA 9(2)(f) requires the NtK to specify that "the charge must be paid within 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given" (which is presumed to be two working days after posting). Instead, very clearly and prominently, the NtK states: “PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE ISSUE OF THIS NOTICE” which is incorrect. This wording shortens the statutory payment deadline and is therefore non-compliant.

At no point, as far as I can see, does it state who the creditor is? PoFA 9(2)(h) requires the "name of the creditor" to be clearly identified. While the NtK references Capital Car Park Control Ltd as part of the postal address for payments to be sent, it does not explicitly identify them as the creditor. This omission is another clear PoFA failure.

There are also multiple PPSCoP breaches/failures, not limited to but including:

1. Incorrect Payment Deadline – Breach of Section 10.1 (Note)

The NtK falsely states that “PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE ISSUE OF THIS NOTICE”. However, the PPSCoP requires that the deadline be 28 days from the date of "receipt" of the NtK (which is presumed to be two working days after the issue date).

PPSCoP Section 10.1 states:


This means no enforcement action (including debt recovery) can commence before the expiry of the appeal period. The operator’s incorrect deadline misleads recipients into believing they have less time to appeal and unfairly pressures payment.

2. Ludicrous Claim That the "Vehicle" is Liable – Breach of Section 9.1(a)

The NtK boldly states:


This is a complete legal absurdity. A vehicle cannot enter into a contract, nor can it be liable for anything.

Nowhere in the PPSCoP does it permit a vehicle to be the liable party. This error undermines the entire notice and raises questions about the operator's competence in issuing parking charges.

3. Failure to Identify the Driver as the Liable Party – Breach of Section 8.2

The NtK wording of the alleged contravention is legally and grammatically nonsensical:


This rambling attempt at legal jargon is legally ambiguous and fails to identify the driver as the liable party or clarify how or when any contract was formed or adequately state what specific action allegedly caused a breach.

PPSCoP Section 8.2 states:


The NtK does not clarify this distinction, meaning it fails to comply with Section 8.2.

Additionally, the PPSCoP mandates transparency and clarity in all communications under Section 8.3, which states:
 

The NtK's wording is confusing and fails to meet this requirement.