3. Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -  (Read 764 times)

0 Members and 214 Guests are viewing this topic.

Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« on: »
Dear all,

Upon entering the car park, the driver was making deliveries around that area, parked up for very little time, being on the move most of the time.

The camera is showing vehicles entering and exiting the area being positioned towards where the road beings and not showing any images of the parking spaces or any parking lot. Therefore the above mentioned one might make a case the camera is not showing the vehicle as parked as per notice having been parked for 42 minutes.

The driver of the vehicle may produce some pictures of the app having doing Amazon deliveries (as per from the app), one of the boxes, and even the insurance running with a receipt time and date stamps.

The driver might also claim he was mandated by the residents of the area on behalf of Amazon to deliver the parcels, therefore having permission to access the private land as having basically received a mandate from Amazon that received it from their residents that are allowed on the private land.



Please see attached PCN and a snip from Google pics, along with an expiations where driver might have delivered.

Below link shows exact location of the camera.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5744541,-0.3185467,3a,75y,63.38h,103.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srcqlPVg1YBxZKUGRzI7C0Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-13.144212669477497%26panoid%3DrcqlPVg1YBxZKUGRzI7C0Q%26yaw%3D63.375293953918714!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


On 26st June, I, the registered keeper, received a PCN through the post.

Please advise on the best course of action.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #1 on: »
The only way this will be dealt with is by appealing as the Keeper. No appeal will be successful but you have to go through the motions. Eventually a court claim will be made and if you follow all the advice, it will eventually either be struck out or discontinued. the whole process will take anything from 9 months otherwise a year or more.

The operator has no idea who the driver is and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. So, no inadvertently blabbing the drivers identity. As the Keeper, you always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver idi this or that".

First step is to follow this advice:

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:

Quote
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. UKCPM 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. UKCPM have no hope should you try to litigate this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back when you receive the appeal rejection.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #2 on: »
Quote from: b789 on July 17, 2025, 12:27:27 am
The only way this will be dealt with is by appealing as the Keeper. No appeal will be successful but you have to go through the motions. Eventually a court claim will be made and if you follow all the advice, it will eventually either be struck out or discontinued. the whole process will take anything from 9 months otherwise a year or more.

The operator has no idea who the driver is and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. So, no inadvertently blabbing the drivers identity. As the Keeper, you always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver idi this or that".

First step is to follow this advice:

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:

Quote
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. UKCPM 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. UKCPM have no hope should you try to litigate this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back when you receive the appeal rejection.


Dear Sir,

I love it. You're an absolute genius and I love the tone, as the keeper of the vehicle, I cannot say anything else but say that I love IT, even the driver of that vehicle might love it.

I completely understand the tone as whatever I say they will have rejected it anyway. We are just cutting through the chase, not beating around the bush too much.

A similar advice was received from another nice gentlemen I have met on this forum, might be the same as was in contact with him via email.

I am extremely grateful for all your advice and help.

I wish you have a great day ahead of you sir as you already brightened mine. 
« Last Edit: July 17, 2025, 09:33:20 am by Anca.Antohi »
Logged
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #3 on: »
Dear Sir,

Please note that today I have received yet another letter from them, sounds a bit rude and threatening.

They have not even allowed or included my possibility to appeal this, however not over the allowed given period to do so.

It looks like some 2nd grader has written this as some sort of bully to intimidate me.

The alleged contravention has happened on the 24th of June, providing me with the possibility to appeal within 28 days of issuance. Not to have mentioned the fact letter arrived several days later.

Would this not be classed as harassment ? and avoidance to disclose all the possible options available ? is this not bad intent they are acting upon ? Could I get this dismissed just on sheer fact they are not even allowing me to take action on their own timetable ? Sounds extreme with prior cause of them issuing such a notice.

I kindly ask you provide me with some knowledge if possible. Any chance we can dismiss this on a technicality ? Is this letter correct ?

I thank you in advance for doing so.

Please see attached the notice received today.



 

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #4 on: »
Your posts do not obscure personal information such as your name and address, which you might not want to display on an essentially public forum.
Logged
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #5 on: »
Quote from: jfollows on July 17, 2025, 03:02:36 pm
Your posts do not obscure personal information such as your name and address, which you might not want to display on an essentially public forum.

Hi,

Appreciated, however not helpful, feel free to steal my identity, however advisable is that you don't due to various reasons I won't mention.

And yes, I do understand these are visible to everyone, including the authorities I am up against, however this is just advice, as the citizens advice line I never actually get a pick up.

Our data is sold on a daily basis by all companies, hence all the spam emails and scam calls.

I don't fear what is actually happening, will just add another layer of defense, one invisible to the naked eye.

Thanks for your kind message, however I am aware of the documents posted being uncensored. 


Feel free to comment on the relevant topic if you have ever had a CPM PCN received or anything relevant on in regards to them.

Logged
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #6 on: »
What you have received is just a reminder and can be ignored. You will also receive a load of useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive the appeal rejection and we'll provide you with an IAS appeal, which will also be rejected. I already told you, this will take a long time to resolve as it will eventually end up as a claim. We will advise all through the process and eventually, you will win when they discontinue.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #7 on: »
Quote from: b789 on July 17, 2025, 12:27:27 am
The only way this will be dealt with is by appealing as the Keeper. No appeal will be successful but you have to go through the motions. Eventually a court claim will be made and if you follow all the advice, it will eventually either be struck out or discontinued. the whole process will take anything from 9 months otherwise a year or more.

The operator has no idea who the driver is and the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. So, no inadvertently blabbing the drivers identity. As the Keeper, you always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver idi this or that".

First step is to follow this advice:

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:

Quote
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. UKCPM 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. UKCPM have no hope should you try to litigate this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back when you receive the appeal rejection.

Hi,

I know we already spoke about this, probably just recently added this field on their website (just so I make you aware for future cases as well)

Am I the registered keeper ? and therefore in no association with the driver ?

I should select The Registered Keeper ?

Or should I go with other ? I am under any obligation to mention my status as the keeper of this vehicle ?

Please see attached below what I mean.

I know it must sound silly, I am just double checking. Please confirm that registered keeper is ok or if I should go with "other"

Thanks in advance for all your help.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: July 20, 2025, 09:05:57 am by Anca.Antohi »
Logged
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #8 on: »
Please ignore the above. I have read your message again.
Logged
Re: Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -
« Reply #9 on: »
Anything that does not admit being the driver! "Other" covers it but Registered Keeper or Hirer (if hired/leased vehicle) will also do.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Nightingale Avenue (HA1 3GX) PCN 40070495 – No Permit – Private Land -