Free Traffic Legal Advice

My EV was parked in a retail park to charge. The car park does have the usual signs up stating that the maximum parking period is 90 minutes. But the charger has a sign on saying that charging is permissible up to 4 hours. It seems sensible that charging a car could take longer than 90 minutes and that this is actually a benefit to the landowner as they receive revenue rather than just blocking a spot in a busy car park.

I tried to appeal through the parking management company and they rejected.

So I can appeal to POPLA but, if i lose, I have to pay the full whack, not the reduced early payment fee. I can't judge whether they might uphold my appeal.

Citizens Advice suggests either (1) paying under protest and then filing a claim to recoup or (2) letting them take you to court and fighting the case. - (1) This seems a practical option and is probably my preference at the moment. - (2) sounds interesting but I don't see how I can "let them take me to court". What I think they will actually do is hire a debt enforcement agency and escalate rapidly while adding additional charges.

Since I appealed, I now also note that the original enforcement notice seems to have an error. They state that their T&Cs are for a restricted time period between 2am and 10am but that my stay was from 3.29pm and 6.57pm. I think they have their time shown the wrong way round but can I still challenge on this basis?

I have tried to read all relevant advice on the obvious forums. I'd be very grateful for any advice. It happened in Weymouth, England. It's not close to me so I have not taken photos of the signs and Google street view does not show them.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, the vehicle is leased through LEX, so the correspondence went there. On the enforcer's website, the 'owner information' still says Lex Autolease.

I did not state the driver's details in my first appeal.

I'll see if there's more I can do for  the signs but they are set back within a retail site that isn't covered internally by Google street view.

I'll try to figure out who owns the car park. I'm not sure if it's KFC, who have that corner of the site or if the whole place is managed centrally. While I am complaining to the site owner, do I need to tell the enforcement company to prevent them taking further steps? I shall also try the EV charger company - thanks for the suggestion.

I did not state the driver's details in my first appeal.

Can you show us what exactly your appeal said?

I did not state the driver's details in my first appeal.

You probably did and it is essential that this is examined before you get distracted by signs.

To start this process, where is their response?

Unless you have named yourself as driver then it is Lex who are in the frame. But before we go into why...:

1. Amend all your posts so that the driver's identity is neither stated nor implied;
2. Post their response;
3. Explain how you came to have Lex's PCN and post any covering correspondence;
4. Forget about signs for the moment, pl.

I've removed the attachment because the document you uploaded contained your full name and home address. Remove your personal details and re-upload.

I have also now been in touch with InstaVolt and await their reply.

I am finding it hard to work out who the landowner is. Possibly KFC but in a wider retail park so perhqps more likely the overall retail park landowner - they don't seem to like having an internet presence!

Thanks for all the advice so far. I'm coming back with some new information and having absorbed the advice given. I have tried to follow the guidance in the sticky and also followed the info on the MSE forum.

1. The EV was parked in a retail car park. I now have photos of the signs and also now know the landowner and the EV charger owners.
- I have spoken with the landowner, who initially said they would speak to the enforcement company (Civil Enforcement) to have it rescinded. However, they then changed their mind when I Forwarded the enforcement notice to them.
- I have also spoken with the EV charger company, who are unwilling to assist in any way (InstaVolt).

2. The car is a lease vehicle and the enforcement notice was sent to Lex Autolease. However I have probably identified myself as the driver (see below).

3. When I first received the enforcement notice (by post), I was not aware of these forums and did not follow the advice herein. I appealed online on the basis of conflicting signs (charger says 4 hour max stay, car park says 90 mins). They rejected and now state my only recourse is to POPLA. They provided a code. I do not have a copy of my appeal as it was an online form. I am fairly sure that I was not careful with my language and have probably identified myself as the driver.

4. I also submitted a second appeal online - their system allowed me to even though they had stated that I had reached the end of the appeal process. In this one, I did not state myself as driver (horse bolted etc). Their first appeal rejection was directed to me personally at my address - the second to LEX Autolease.

5.  They have sent to me a photo from the car park (attached). The headline of the sign states "90 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY FOR KFC CUSTOMERS ONLY". I did not use the car park as a KFC customer. I used it as a customer of the EV chargers. It would be reasonable to use a charger for more than 90 minutes and the sign reads to me as applying only to KFC customers. I believe this is a reasonable defence and would be happy to go to court on that basis.

I suspect that the whole keeper/driver thing is irrelevant now as I probably identified myself.
However, I feel comfortable challenging this in court on the basis of using the car park for an encouraged activity (charging) which reasonably takes longer than 90 minutes. Furthermore, the sign that says 90 minutes states "FOR KFC CUSTOMERS ONLY" and I was not a KFC customer.

Some other explanations:

1. I have an enforcement notice, which was posted to LEX, who made it available online.
- So I do not have a NTK.
- I only have the front page and the second page is not available (which includes "Details and Ways to Pay").
- Therefore there are elements of POFA 4 (9) that have not been served to me.
- The part that I have does not state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver (POFA 4 (9.2.e)).
- It was posted to LEX and nothing has been posted to my address (despite them knowing my address) (POFA 4 9.3).
2. I have one letter  "Response to Representation", directed to me, which states that I have two options: Pay the original reduced charge (which was sent to LEX not me) or appeal to POPLA.
3. And another letter "Response to Representation", which is not mine but sent to LEX (emailed to me).

I am a little unsure about where I stand around the whole keeper/driver/leasing aspect of this now.

I think I should tell LEX not to pay on my behalf.
The key thing to me seems to be that Civil Enforcement have not sent me any NTK (the only thing they have sent to me is an appeal rejection from a notice served on another entity).
So do I do nothing and see what they do next? Is there any benefit to this timing out at some point if they haven't served details?
Should I use POPLA appeal now?
Or should I write to them, with my objection - I'm wary of writing to them and encouraging them to send me stuff back, when at the moment they haven't actually served any NTK or enforcement on me.

Thanks as ever.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The landowner has categorically said they won't help now.

I don't have a photo of the charger sign. My memory on this feels more hazy than it did but I felt pretty sure about that at the time. It's a three-hour drive away so not simple to go and check.

On the sign:
 - Thanks for the comment around forbidding and therefore there being no contract.
 - I do think there's a reasonable case that the car park now has two clear functions - one being to park while eating greasy chicken and another being to charge your vehicle. The sign is for KFC customers and it would be reasonable that if you are using the parking for charging purposes you are not limited to 90 minutes. But grateful for other views.

I appreciate that the appeals seems confusing:
 - When I first received LEX's NTK, I had not read any of this advice, so went online, filled in my name and address and email and appealed. They therefore replied to me.
 - On the second, I left the (pre-populated) fields as they were, with LEX's name but I did enter my email so that the reply came to me. Therefore the second reply was addressed to LEX but emailed to me.

Am I right in thinking right now that CE has not actually sent me anything, so I could safely sit on my hands? Or is this just delaying the inevitable as they'll get it from LEX or DVLA?

Thanks