Ok I've searched for and read various UKPC cases on here, it seems they like to push the cases as far as they can albeit not "all the way".
I've only got the w/end left to go to POPLA, do you chaps have any suggestions re either paperwork issues or signage to use for POPLA?
Below is a copy / paste of some of the suggestions from other cases:
===========
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
As long as the driver is not identified, there is an appeal based on non-compliance with PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
===========
No period of parking stated - a single time stamp is not regarded as sufficient - Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a) requirement.
A section of mandatory wording is missing - 9(2)(f) states that the notice must... Warn the keeper... blah blah blah... the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; - the warning in bold is missing and the NtK does not warn the keeper that the parking operator's NtK must meet "all the applicable conditions" to be able to use PoFA keeper liability.
===========
PoFA 9.2(a) as there is no mention of the “period of parking”. All that NtK mentions is a “vehicle duration”, whatever that may be.
===========
... that signage appears to be forbidding. That is, it doesn't make an offer for anyone to park on certain terms, it simply prohibits any and all stopping/parking. Given that there is no offer of consideration made by UKPC, there cannot be any contract formed between the driver and UKPC. If there is no contract, then no money is owed.
... even if the signage was otherwise capable of forming a contract (which, as above, will be denied), the content of it is poor - the £80 charge is hardly displayed prominently, instead being displayed in a small font amongst other text.
If they are deemed not to have 'specified' the relevant land, then they are unable to recover the charge from the registered keeper, instead only being able to pursue the driver (who they do not know), as they will be deemed not to have complied with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)
===========
[to do in edit]
TX.
