Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a PCN from parking control management for “parked outside the confines of a marked bay”. Parking charge to keeper. Received within 14 days of “offence”

Driver story is as they entered this section of the car park, where they park 4-5 times a week, they noticed a man on a bicycle checking car door handles, and picking up old cigarettes and what not. Fearing for the safety of the vehicle, the driver observed the person in this section of the parking lot in the corner of the lot before committing to leave the vehicle there. Whilst in the vehicle, the driver noticed someone in a car taking photos of the driver, thinking he was with the dodgy looking person as it is an odd thing to do. So the driver took photos of him.

Little did the driver know he was taking evidence for a fine!

Do I have any grounds for appeal given that:
1. Driver was present in the vehicle when photos were taken, with proof of the pcm worker. In one of their photos on the online portal, a person can be seen in driver seat.
2. Driver drove off a few minutes after the photos
3. The bay next to the Driver has building works so impossible to park in and not usable for another customer. Also passenger cannot exit vehicle.
4. The white lines are not visible beneath the car.

Thanks all.

Please show us the NtKand any evidential photos they have provided. Just because the NtK arrived within 14 days of the event is not proof that they have complied with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable.

Leave all dates and times showing.

ok I will send letter and all the photos they uploaded tomorrow.

All those photos show is a vehicle in a bay with no ground markings taken over the span of less than a minute.

The NtK is not PoFA compliant. It fails on 9(2)(e)(i) and (ii) in that there is no invitation (nor any synonym of the word) for the keeper to pay the charge and it also fails to tell the keeper to pass the NtK to the driver.

The NtK also fails PoFA on 9(2)(a) in that it does not specify a period of parking. It simply specifies a moment in time.

On that basis, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge, only the driver whose identity is unknown to PCM. Additionally, there is no evidence of any contravention as the vehicle appears to be within a bay. There are no markings to indicate that the location is not a bay or that it is an area that is not available for parking.

The evidence does not show that the driver did not consider any signage as it is evident that the driver is still in the vehicle over the period of less than a minute. So it breaches the new joint CoP at 2.24, 5.1, 7.3c and Annex B.

Unfortunately, this is an IPC operator so, once the initial appeal is rejected (it will be) a secondary appeal to the IAS is an exercise in futility. Others will advise otherwise but personally, I wouldn't bother.

What you want is to see if they have the bottle to take it all the way to the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small claims track in the county court. You would be waiting to see if/when they decide to issue a claim. If they do, that is good and is when you will win this. There is no danger of a CCJ.

In the meantime, they will be sending useless debt collector letters hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay up once they use language that threatens litigation. You want that, they don’t because they know that if it ever got that far, they would get a spanking from a judge.

The choice is yours, appeal as the keeper with the points highlighted above and see it rejected and then do or don’t try an IAS appeal which has a les than 5% chance of being accepted and/or wait for a Letter of Claim (LoC) and an N1SDT claim form from the CNBC.

Edited to add a health warning: There is a minuscule chance that if this ever actually got to a hearing and a judge did not accept your defence, you could be liable for ~£200 in total for the PCN and fixed costs. However, it is extremely unlikely that this would ever get to an actual hearing with the highly likelyhood of the operator having their claim struck out or them discontinuing once they realise you are not gullible and are prepared to take this all the way.

Once they have actually pay a hearing fee, they will abandon and go looking for lower hanging fruit on the gullible tree

They could show a photo of the bay but all they will have is what is on the file which you have seen only shows the vehicle for less than a minute is what appears to be a bay with no bother ground markings to suggest otherwise.

It doesn’t matter anyway because you appeal as the keeper. You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. They cannot hold the keeper, you, liable because they have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA. They have nowhere else to go with this except to try and scare you into paying them.

If it went all the way to court (unlikely but possible) and a judge did not accept your defence and that you owe the claimant a debt, it would be the original PCN of £100 plus a £35 claim fee and fixed legal costs of £50. They would not allow the fake added “damages” of £70 they add on at DRA stage.

In the remote chance of a loss in court, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of anything on your credit file. It is expunged.

These shysters rely on the gullibility of their victims lack of knowledge of civil law to either capitulate once the threat of litigation arises or hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.

They could show a photo of the bay but all they will have is what is on the file which you have seen only shows the vehicle for less than a minute is what appears to be a bay with no bother ground markings to suggest otherwise.

It doesn’t matter anyway because you appeal as the keeper. You are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. They cannot hold the keeper, you, liable because they have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA. They have nowhere else to go with this except to try and scare you into paying them.

If it went all the way to court (unlikely but possible) and a judge did not accept your defence and that you owe the claimant a debt, it would be the original PCN of £100 plus a £35 claim fee and fixed legal costs of £50. They would not allow the fake added “damages” of £70 they add on at DRA stage.

In the remote chance of a loss in court, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of anything on your credit file. It is expunged.

These shysters rely on the gullibility of their victims lack of knowledge of civil law to either capitulate once the threat of litigation arises or hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.

Thank you.

They responded to my appeal and of course rejected. Even in the appeal they said bay marked by the following things... And there is none of those in the images they have. Should I bother to appeal to the IAS or just wait it out from now?

Quote from: b789 on August 01, 2024, 09:44:46 pm

hope that the victim fails to follow the correct procedures and they get a CCJ by default.

A brief add-on to this - if you move house before the matter is concluded, be sure to update them with your new address. When we do see people who have ended up with default judgements against them, the lion's share are due to changes of address.

Thanks for the heads up.