Author Topic: Parking Charge Notice Received.  (Read 934 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

b789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2024, 02:46:05 pm »
A couple of points after reviewing this thread… OP, you stated early on the following:

The driver and passenger went to pick up an order at the restaurant beside the Natwest bank.
From the cctv the wait was at least 15mins.

You then go on to state in your appeal:

The driver did not leave the car at any time nor turn off the engine of the car. The car was not parked and there was no intention to park at any time.

What exactly occurred? Did the driver park the car, switch off the engine and leave the car unattended for 15 minutes or was the car just stopped for a short duration in order to load or unload?

Would someone explain why the NTK is not compliant e.g. it was given in time, it contains the mandatory warning etc?

If it's compliant, then why is the OP claiming - without staring why - it is not?

I wrote early 9n in this thread that there could be a technical flaw with the NtK due to some wording without going into detail at this stage as it will not be for the PPC to determine. As far as I was concerned, there is only a requirement to raise the matter of the flawed NtK in order that it can be dealt with later by a legally trained mind, either at POPLA (questionable) or by a judge.

The technical point is that the wording in the warning to the keeper does not strictly comply with PoFA, which it must do.

PoFA paragraph 9(2) states that a NtK must-

9(2)(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days…

The NtK does not warn the keeper. It advises the keeper. Yes, I appreciate that this could be argued as splitting hairs. However, whilst it is likely to be up to a judge to agree or disagree whether this discrepancy in significant wording alters any facts, it should be raised.

The point of how it is argued is in the definitions of “to warn” or “to advise”, specifically in relation to statutes and legal matters. The term "must" in legal language generally indicates a mandatory requirement rather than a suggestion or advisory. Therefore, the failure to meet this requirement could potentially invalidate the ability of the operator to hold the keeper liable.

However, the interpretation and application of legal statutes can be nuanced and subject to legal debate. When something is required by law, it means there are consequences for failing to do it. If you are legally obligated to warn someone about potential risks or dangers and you don't, there could be legal repercussions such as, in this case, transfer of liability from the driver to the keeper. On the other hand, when something is advised, it is more of a suggestion or recommendation without the same level of legal backing.

At the end of the day, it is a point of dispute and is raised as just one of a number of arguments. Having discussed this with a district judge, he told me that if it was raised, he would be obliged to consider that fact. As to whether it would be conclusive, was not determined and it would be up to the individual judge as to whether they agreed or not.

Hence my reason for suggesting that the validity of the NtK to hold the keeper liable under PoFA is raised. I agree that the PPC is not going to consider this and POPLA are just as likely to disappoint on this single issue. However, if this ever progresses to Plan D, it is a valid point to include in a defence.

Strawberries007

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2024, 08:07:50 pm »
A couple of points after reviewing this thread… OP, you stated early on the following:

The driver and passenger went to pick up an order at the restaurant beside the Natwest bank.
From the cctv the wait was at least 15mins.

You then go on to state in your appeal:

The driver did not leave the car at any time nor turn off the engine of the car. The car was not parked and there was no intention to park at any time.

What exactly occurred? Did the driver park the car, switch off the engine and leave the car unattended for 15 minutes or was the car just stopped for a short duration in order to load or unload?

Would someone explain why the NTK is not compliant e.g. it was given in time, it contains the mandatory warning etc?

If it's compliant, then why is the OP claiming - without staring why - it is not?

I wrote early 9n in this thread that there could be a technical flaw with the NtK due to some wording without going into detail at this stage as it will not be for the PPC to determine. As far as I was concerned, there is only a requirement to raise the matter of the flawed NtK in order that it can be dealt with later by a legally trained mind, either at POPLA (questionable) or by a judge.

The technical point is that the wording in the warning to the keeper does not strictly comply with PoFA, which it must do.

PoFA paragraph 9(2) states that a NtK must-

9(2)(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days…

The NtK does not warn the keeper. It advises the keeper.

Thank you B789 for your contribution.

The driver and passenger drove to the location in order to pick up an order at the restaurant.
I provided this background because you asked that I fill in some detail.

Can you please fill in some detail as to why the car was at that location? You say that the driver never left the car. However, that is irrelevant. How long was the car stopped, if at all, at that location?....
Was the driver picking up or dropping off a passenger?

The driver and passenger went to the location in the car. The passenger got out of the car and walked to the restaurant to pick up the order while the driver waited in the car. The wait was about 15mins.


Below is my intended reply.
I'll appreciate final comments please.
Thank you.


I appeal as the registered keeper.
I dispute your 'parking charge' and deny any liability or contractual agreement.  Further to, I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.
I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so. You cannot transfer the driver’s purported liability to me. You have not served me with a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that strictly complies with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and it is now too late to do so.

According to the driver, no contract could have been agreed as there were no signs that were prominent or even visible at the location, which is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), section 19.2.
From the photos, it can be seen that the signs are beyond the gate and a camera mounted before the signs. This arrangement is evidently not in good faith as it all seems set to ambush the driver only for them to realise when it is too late.
The position of the signs does not give the driver an option to read the signs, terms and conditions decide whether or not they wish to enter into such “agreement”. By the time the driver gets to the signs, they’re already in.
Furthermore, according to your Parking Charge Notice (PCN), any signs at the location would have been “forbidding” if they stated “No Parking”, thus proving that there was no contract by conduct on offer.

Your PCN states that it is being issued because of “Parking In No Parking Area”.
The driver did not leave the car at any time nor turn off the engine of the car. The car was not parked.

The charge for parking could not have been agreed as there was no sign at the entrance of the road to that effect. This is in breach of BPA Code of Practice (CoP), section 19.1. “…. the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

No entrance signs. This is in breach of S.19.2 BPA CoP.  “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format”.
No contract to park could have been created or agreed. Therefore, there is no debt owed by the driver and I am not liable as the registered keeper.

I now require you to cancel the parking charge or issue me with a POPLA code where a trained assessor will likely agree with me that the PCN has not been issued correctly.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 288
  • Karma: +4/-1
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Charge Notice Received.
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2024, 01:25:15 am »
Unless you are stuck in traffic, if a car is stationary for 15 minutes it is parked, regardless of whether the driver remains in the vehicle, whether the engine is running or whether he is picking his nose.

If you want to peddle that tripe in your appeal, that's your choice, but don't peddle it here.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.