-
Hi all,
We just received this in the post.
It says in the last sentence of the first paragraph the PCN has not been paid in full. That is incorrect. We didn't receive anything.
The driver was in the car all the time and hadnt seen any sign.
Please see link to PCN https://ibb.co/album/Hp1RMf
Thank you.
-
-
If you haven't paid the PCN, how is their claim that it has not been paid in full incorrect?
The rest of it might be utter bollox, but the bit you chose to refute appears to be true. -
-
It says in the last sentence of the first paragraph the PCN has not been paid in full. That is incorrect. We didn't receive anything.
The driver was in the car all the time and hadnt seen any sign.
I don't quite understand how "we didn't receive anything" relates to "their PCN has not been paid in full". Can you please elaborate on that so my confusion can be corrected?
That aside, this is a defendable but will probably have to go as far as Plan C. Plan A, depending on your reasons for being at the location, have you tried to contact the landowner and get them to get this PCN cancelled?
In order to be able to progress to Plan C, you must do Plan B which is an appeal to Premier Park, which they no doubt will reject but that rejection gets you a POPLA code which is required to progress to Plan C.
Hopefully, a good POPLA appeal will be successful. However, if it isn't, never mind. A POPLA decision is not binding and you would then progress to Plan D which is have a judge decide whether you owe a debt to Premier Park.
Whilst the NtK is mostly PoFA compliant, there are technical issues with it that could be argued that invalidate it being able to hold you, the registered keeper liable for the charge. So, appeal only as the keeper, not the driver. Do not identify the driver with words like "I parked..." or "I drove..." etc.
They are claiming a brach of contract but there was no contract to be breached because the signage is prohibitive. In order for a contract to be agreed by conduct, there has to be an agreement. Such agreements MUST include:
An offer
Acceptance of that offer
Consideration - something of value must pass both ways and
Intention to create legally binding obligations.
If the signs are what is known as "forbidding", "No Parking" means they contain no offer - "you must not park here" is not an offer.
By stopping there, you were not agreeing to a contractual term, you were potentially trespassing. That is a completely different area of law. No sign can set out contractual terms for trespass.
So, appeal as the keeper and tell them that, according to the driver, there were no prominent or obvious signs visible from within the vehicle that offered any contract to park at the location for £100. You deny any liability as the registered keeper.
After the inevitable rejection, you move on to a POPLA appeal which will go much further into the legal and BPA Code of Practice details as well as technicalities that make the NtK non-PoFA compliant. POPLA does not consider mitigating circumstances, only whether the PCN/NtK has been issued correctly according to the BPA CoP and the law.
Show us what you propose to put in your Plan B appeal to Premier Park before submitting anything. -
-
Thank you for your prompt response.
We didn't receive any Notice prior to this one where it is inferred we would have received it but hadn't paid. -
-
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?
You say that the driver did not see any signs. Can you go back and get some photos of the location showing the lack of signage? That is a very strong point for defeating this.
Whilst the PPC may try and insist that double yellow lines (DYL) mean no parking, that only applies on the public highway. DYL do not mean no stopping. Too many people misunderstand the meaning of DYL. As long as there are no kerb blips associated with the DYL, you are allowed to stop for loading and unloading purposes.
The definition of any yellow lines in the Highway Code states:
As for what they mean on private land is anyones guess. It is up to the landowner or their agent to provide an interpretation.
Was the driver picking up or dropping off a passenger? -
-
Not quite correct so far IMO.
The driver passes a sign which states that the land beyond is private and where parking controls apply.
The driver is advised in this sign to check the detailed Ts and Cs on other signs which would be in plentiful supply and clear.
The driver has to exit the car to read these, staying in the car is no excuse or defence.
I disagree with b789 as regards this being a no parking/stopping area and therefore no contract was offered. The exact terminology is not key IMO, instead for this to apply it is whether without exception all the controlled land prohibited parking, not just this part. IMO, if the controls indicated a mix of terms including those which applied to parking correctly then the argument that where the driver was is somehow excluded from this offer would fail i.e. you may enter and park provided you *** and *** and do not park on **** parts marked as follows ****. A breach of any of these conditions would mean the driver agreed to pay a parking charge (AKA penalty) of £***.
It's a set menu, not a la carte.
But as others have posted we need more info.
-
-
Is this the location that the car was stopped at? (the image can be clicked to a GSV of the location)
If so, there is no sign at the entrance stating that it is private land. This is breach of the BPA Code of Practice, namely paragraph 19.2. Read it here: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf
They've had since at least July 2018 to have the necessary signage erected.
If they do not cancel on initial appeal, this is winnable at POPLA.
Edited to add; There is no mention that CCTV or ANPR is being used which is another breach of the BPA CoP, never mind a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). -
-
Yes, that is the location. Over 100 miles away.
The driver and passenger went to pick up an order at the restaurant beside the Natwest bank.
Below is the intended reply.
Re PCN number:
I dispute your 'parking charge' as the keeper of the vehicle.
I deny any liability or contractual agreement and 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 require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence.
Most importantly, I require a close up actual photograph of the signage you contend was at the location on the material date, photograph showing the location of the sign on the premises, photos showing the text on the signage, as well as your images of the vehicle.
From Google's Street View photos I see that the painting on the road says "keep clear".
There was no contract to be breached because the signage is prohibitive, "forbidding", "No Parking" means they contain no offer - "you must not park here" is not an offer.
In order for a contract to be agreed by conduct, there has to be an agreement, ie:
An offer
Acceptance of that offer
Consideration - something of value must pass both ways and
Intention to create legally binding obligations.
There is no mention that CCTV or ANPR is being used. This is another breach of the BPA CoP, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Please note that any further correspondence from yourself or your agent with respect to this vehicle implies that you wish for it to be read and thereby agree to a charge of £100 per correspondence. Each corresponding charge increasing by 50% upon every new correspondence.
However, where said correspondence is simply to notify the keeper that all demands and actions with respect to your "parking charge" or this vehicle are forthwith concluded and nothing further will be pursued by yourselves or other person deriving authority from you, there shall be no charge for that correspondence.
NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER IN THE RELEVANT BOX ON THE APPEALS PAGE. -
-
I think the GSV picture is recent enough to show that they have not complied with the BPA CoP with regards to informing motorists that they are entering on to private land and that there are terms and conditions for doing so.
I can see from the GSV that there is a sign to the right after the gate and maybe one further along. However, it is difficult to see if they are compliant enough to forma contract, especially as they are unlit and not facing a driver so as to alert them to the fact that they are terms of parking on private land.
No contract can have been entered into. What is the date of the NtK and the deadline to submit your Plan B appeal? Show us here, what you intend to put in that appeal so we can give you an idea on any corrections that may necessary. -
-
The PCN is dated 27th January 2024, to be paid within 14 days ie 10th of February.
The time stamps from the CCTV show a 15min wait.
I've rang the restraunt to see if they could help but go no reply.
-
-
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.
I rang the restaurant but received no reply. I'm not sure they have dealing with the car park company.
Below is the intended reply.
Re PCN number:
I dispute your 'parking charge' as the keeper of the vehicle.
I deny any liability or contractual agreement and 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 require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence.
Most importantly, I require a close up actual photograph of the signage you contend was at the location on the material date, photograph showing the location of the sign on the premises, photos showing the text on the signage, as well as your images of the vehicle.
From Google's Street View photos I see that the painting on the road says "keep clear".
There was no contract to be breached because the signage is prohibitive, "forbidding", "No Parking" means they contain no offer - "you must not park here" is not an offer.
In order for a contract to be agreed by conduct, there has to be an agreement, ie:
An offer
Acceptance of that offer
Consideration - something of value must pass both ways and
Intention to create legally binding obligations.
There is no mention that CCTV or ANPR is being used. This is another breach of the BPA CoP, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Please note that any further correspondence from yourself or your agent with respect to this vehicle implies that you wish for it to be read and thereby agree to a charge of £100 per correspondence. Each corresponding charge increasing by 50% upon every new correspondence.
However, where said correspondence is simply to notify the keeper that all demands and actions with respect to your "parking charge" or this vehicle are forthwith concluded and nothing further will be pursued by yourselves or other person deriving authority from you, there shall be no charge for that correspondence.
NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER IN THE RELEVANT BOX ON THE APPEALS PAGE. -
-
Quote
Please note that any further correspondence from yourself or your agent with respect to this vehicle implies that you wish for it to be read and thereby agree to a charge of £100 per correspondence. Each corresponding charge increasing by 50% upon every new correspondence
Leave this bit out, it's nonsense. They're allowed to contact you to pursue an alleged debt, and you can't charge them for doing so. -
-
It is unlikely that the restaurant has any influence on the PPC so that avenue is not likely to result in any cancellation. However, you may as well try... just in case.
Re PCN number:
I dispute your 'parking charge' as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and 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. Whilst your Notice to Keeper (NtK) attempts to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper using some limited wording from Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), it fails on several points which I will eagerly put to POPLA and, if necessary, to a judge.
I require an explanation of the allegation and the evidence you are relying on. Most importantly, I require a close-up, actual photograph of the signage you contend was at the location on the material date, a photograph showing the location of the sign on the premises, photos showing the text on the signage, as well as your images of the vehicle in relation to any signs under the same nighttime lighting conditions.
The driver states that there is no entrance sign at the location in breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), paragraph 19.2. Additionally, the driver states that there were no obvious or prominent signs visible at the time they stopped at the location.
If no signs were visible or prominent, then there could not be any offer of a contract. Even if any signs had been visible and prominent, no contractual term could have been breached because the NtK states that the signage said "NO PARKING" which is not an offer.
In order for a contract to be agreed by conduct, there has to be an agreement, ie:
A contract is an agreement. Such agreements MUST include:
- An offer
- Acceptance of that offer
- Consideration - something of value must pass both ways
- Intention to create legally binding obligations.
Agreements meeting those conditions are enforceable in law.
The signs at this location, according to the NtK, are what are known as forbidding. They contain no offer - "NO PARKING" is not an offer. If there is no offer, then there can be no contract.
By stopping, the driver was not agreeing to a contractual term but was potentially trespassing. That is a completely different area of law. No sign can set out contractual terms for trespass.
Additionally, there is no obvious signage that mentions that CCTV or ANPR is being used to enforce any conditions. This is a breach of the BPA CoP section 22, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In light of the above points, I suggest that the PCN is cancelled or else please provide a POPLA code so that I can put this to an assessor with some legal training and is able to better understand the validity of the case I am making as the keeper of the vehicle.
The above is just a suggestion but it may be worthwhile waiting to see what other forumites suggest before submitting your appeal. -
-
My personal view would be to leave out the request for a photo of the signage. They're not required to provide it at this stage, and I'd suggest an appeal is better focused on stating why you don't owe the money, rather than providing them opportunities to say why you do.
-
-
As it is unlikely that any appeal to the operator will succeed, it may be best to make the initial appeal as minimal as possible in order to get a POPLA code. I don’t know what I was thinking when I suggested the above.
Maybe try this:
I appeal as the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so. You cannot transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to me as 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. Furthermore, according to your NtK, 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.
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 legally trained assessor will likely agree with me that the PCN has not been issued correctly. -
Like x 1
View List