Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

A few days ago, I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, received a PCN for overstaying in ASDA's car park.

1. Front - https://ibb.co/4P8YNk2
2. Back - https://ibb.co/hc53Qh1
3. Sign in car park - https://ibb.co/jkynBcP

It appears my car was there for 47 minutes, according to the PCN, whereas the maximum time limit for that specific time/day (Saturday, 22:25 - 23:12) is 20 minutes, so I don't think that would be a point of contention.

I have noticed a couple of peculiarities about the letter, the first is that although they've got the registered keeper's name pretty much correct, they've put an asterick after my middle name, missed out the space between my first and second surnames. The second, is that their photographic evidence is almost entirely black, except for the vehicle's headlights, and the registration plate - I'm not sure if they intentionally obscur the rest of the image, or that is just all of the evidence they have (I have censored out the regristration number, but can provide the unedited image if it helps my case). Finally, on the back of the PCN, it says "... a Parking Charge is applicable if the vehicle remains within the car park for longer than the 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time" - the information here is incorrect, the maximum time should have stated "0 hours and 20 minutes".

I've also read that many people have ignored PCNs from ParkingEye and got away with it, but I'm not sure how risky this is.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Hello,

Thank you for your response.

So the story is that the driver originally went to the car park thinking the ASDA was still open, but after seeing it was closed upon arrival, decided to park up and walk to another shop nearby. After returning to the car (would have been less than 20 minutes), the driver then gave their passenger a quick driving lesson before leaving.

So, the car wasn't stationary within the car park during the overstay period, but I'm assuming this also isn't a valid grounds for appeal.

Thank you.

The thinking was that an empty car park would be the safest place as there wouldn't be anything for the learner to hit. The driver thought that the parking restrictions only applied to stationary vehicles, and since the car was actually moving, it did not constitute as "parking", however after reviewing the sign, it does state "stay".

The driver was aware of the restrictions regarding maxmimum stay of 3 hours between the hours of 6am-12am, but didn't realise this didn't apply on the Saturday (again, no excuse, the sign does say this).

In all honesty, I'd say the signage was adequate, I did attach a link in the original post with the sign if you wanted to see for yourself. Noted about the point using their land for the lesson, just not sure of anywhere else the driver could have done it safely.

I was hoping more to contest based on the PCN that they sent me, and any technical errors it may include, such as the incorrect time limit, or perhaps any legal references which I am unfamiliar with.

Please could a mod update the post with the above?

Sorted.

OP i visit this asda quite frequently. I will go down tonight during the late hours and check for you if signs are visibly lit.

You have said that the driver was aware that there are restrictions but chose to ignore them. From GSV, over various dates, there is some ambiguity in the signage you could argue as some signs simply say "3 hours max" although I did see one with the restricted times on it. However, they all say "for use only whilst shopping in store".

The entrance sign is also ambiguous, as it only says "3 hours max".

I would recommend, for now, simply sending the generic appeal response with a minor tweak as follows:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

You have failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, namely paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) in that you have not "invited" (nor any other synonym of the word) me, as the keeper, to pay the charge. You will be well aware that partial or even substantial compliance with all the requirements of PoFA is not enough to hold the keeper liable for the charge. Only full compliance is acceptable. As such, your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet all the requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,

Thank you very much for the appeal template, I've sent it off now. Will update the thread once I get a response.