Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all,

I've received a parking charge notice to keeper from NCP regarding a parking session, reason stated 'parked outside bay markings and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the site at the time of parking'. Now I'll admit, the pictures show my car clearly parked outside of the bay markings    however, I believe context is important: this car park is a horribly unlit, dark and pothole filled piece of land. At the time the car was parked, I believe it was night so therefore very dark, and with no street lights closely the further you get into the car park, it can be very difficult to determine if you are inside a bay or not. This is not helped by the fact that the bay markings do not even go halfway across the bay! They are minimal markings at the front of the bay but like I said, these cannot be seen well in the dark. There are no lights inside the car park either.

I've attached a picture of the letter I have received as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Would appreciate any help or advise on this if anyone has been through a similar situation and managed to successfully appeal. Not sure if this can even be appealed but I'm not willing to pay up without even entertaining the idea!

I've looked through some forums on MSE about appealing fines based on technicalities and wording within the letters - not sure if this is actually one of the grounds which can be argued, but I not although they have given me a date when this breach occurred, no timestamp has been provided. Not sure if this makes a difference? Not too familiar with the appeals grounds so would be helpful if someone could clarify this for me!

Thanks 

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Whatever you do, do not identify the driver. There is a failure in the NtK to show the "period of parking". All there is on that NtK is a date of parking. PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b) say that the notice must specify the period of parking and it doesn't. Bay failing to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA, they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to you the keeper.

They are also in breach of their own ATA CoP on several points. The photos in the NtK don't appear to have any timestamps on them which means they have been altered or cropped. BPA CoP 21.5a applies. It doesn't matter if the file image on their website has the timestamp, it is the image on the NtK that matters.

Can you get any photos of the general layout of the car park showing how it has not been maintained and poor or missing ground markings etc? That is something you can include in your appeal and certainly at POPLA if NCP reject the initial appeal.

At the time the car was parked, I believe it was night

If it gets to court a 'believe' will not get far, surely the driver can tell you when they parked and that would need to be quite late now, well after 9pm, to be dark.

Photo's taken at about the same time elapsed after sunset now as on the date of the parking would be helpful.

Quote from: motorist5000 on May 27, 2024, 05:29:34 pm

At the time the car was parked, I believe it was night

If it gets to court a 'believe' will not get far, surely the driver can tell you when they parked and that would need to be quite late now, well after 9pm, to be dark.

Photo's taken at about the same time elapsed after sunset now as on the date of the parking would be helpful.

Fair enough! Yes that’s a good idea. I will take some tonight and include it in an appeal.