3. PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge  (Read 2178 times)

0 Members and 408 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #30 on: »
It could do with fleshing out a bit and more references to the actual points you are making. For example, you could include a copy of the relevant byelaws rather that just saying that they exist.

While a direct link to the byelaws is not readily available online, you can obtain a copy by contacting the following authorities:

• South Cambridgeshire District Council: As the local authority, they hold records of byelaws within their jurisdiction.
• Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust: This charity manages Milton Country Park and may provide information on park regulations.

This wording was used earlier, so include it again:

Quote
The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4.

Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to hold me liable as Hirer.

Also, it's not worth trying to argue "Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss" (GPEOL) in 2025, unless you are dealing with very old signage or pre-2015 PCNs. These days, it is usually better using arguments such as:

• Lack of PoFA compliance;
• Land not being “relevant land”;
• Unclear, prohibitive, or misleading signage;
• No contract formed / no adequate notice of terms;
• Unlawful data use / KADOE breach;
• Disability discrimination (if applicable).

Only mention GPEOL if:

• The signage still refers to it;
• You are making a point about inconsistency or confusion in the charge wording;
• Or you want to undermine a charge that looks arbitrary and is grossly disproportionate.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #31 on: »
Quote from: b789 on May 15, 2025, 09:02:36 pm
While a direct link to the byelaws is not readily available online
Here's one I made earlier  ;)

Milton Park Byelaws

Accompanying information from the FOI I made at the time:

Quote
I hope the following will answer your query:
 
1.   As far as we are aware of, these bylaws are still in effect
2.   N/A
3.   A copy of the byelaws is attached.
4.   We do not hold any information or plan regarding the land/boundaries for Milton Country Park and there was nothing with the byelaws.
Please note that the original lease for the Park comes from Cambridgeshire County Council and is now run by Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2025, 10:02:13 pm by DWMB2 »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #32 on: »
I must apologise, because, this doesn't really make sense to me? I think you have advised me to only add  points 1&2 into my POPLA response. So my grounds of appeal are driver not identifed and Milton Country park by laws?

I have removed the other points. So my appeal is as below? I can also add the Milton Park Bylaws document. Do I also need to upload the PCN and a copy of my ticket? Sorry I'm not very good drafting letters on topics I have little knowledge on.

Thank you for your help and support.

POPLA Code: 6061355468
Parking Charge Notice: 288486/335086
Vehicle Registration: **** ***
Date of Issue: 11 April 2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper

Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable to Milton Country Park

2. Driver not identified – No presumption of driver liability

1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable
The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4. The land is not “relevant land” as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, and therefore, the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not been identified.

ParkingEye are attempting to hold me liable as the registered keeper, despite this being a location where keeper liability cannot be established under PoFA.

Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to hold me liable as Hirer.

2. Driver not identified
At no stage have I identified the driver, nor is there any legal requirement to do so. ParkingEye have failed to demonstrate who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.

As keeper, I cannot be held liable for a charge incurred by an unknown third party at a location not covered by PoFA.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
 
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #33 on: »
It shouldn't need more than that for POPLA to accept the appeal. However, if ParkingEye do not withdraw, then they will provide their evidence at a later date and you can then see what they have not rebutted in your appeal and counter that.

It is straightforward. The operator has not issued a PoFA complaint NtK, the location is not relevant land anyway. The driver has not been identified.

POPLA will first of all assess whether the Keeper can be liable. they can't. Then they will assess whether the driver has been identified. They haven't.

ParkingEye have nowhere to go with this and the assessor should find accordingly.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #34 on: »
Thank you so much for you help on this. Just a quick question, when submitting my appeal on the POPLA website am I selecting;

I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.

Or

Other

Just want to select the correct option.

Best regards.
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #35 on: »
"Other"

The alternative option would be untrue, as you are the registered keeper.
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #36 on: »
Many thanks all. I have submitted my POPLA appeal. I will advise outcome.

Interestingly, there has been an article in the local newspaper regarding Milton Country Park parking;

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/visitors-popular-cambridgeshire-country-park-31648979
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #37 on: »
Hello, I have received an Action Required email from POPLA and have been asked to 'Please provide your comments on the operator evidence'. The main text is as follows;

Case History
11/04/2025 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
15/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
18/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
25/04/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
25/04/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
25/04/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
25/04/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
02/05/2025 Letter Issued - Driver Details Required non POFA with FAQs Non-POFA
05/05/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
05/05/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
15/05/2025 Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Paid Parking Insufficient with FAQs Non-POFA

Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed).
Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
To obtain a season permit, you must visit the site office with your full, correct vehicle registration & pay the
appropriate rate
Blue Badge holders – please display the clock portion of your Blue Badge in your vehicle and present the photo
portion to site office or scan one of the QR codes on display to register for a 24 hour parking permit.
Park within marked bays No parking on yellow lines/hatched areas
We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the
car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
All available payment options can be found within the enclosed signage. The full, correct vehicle registration
must be inputted when parking payments are made.
Please see below information relating to the payment options on site:
Payment Options: Payment Machine (Metric) and evology pay
Number of Payment Machines: 1
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority
to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be
enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking management companies regarding grace periods
which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring
Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace
Periods.
Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car
parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this
data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may
relate to the registration captured.
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the
backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant to confirm that all supporting evidence relating
to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is displayed in the website appeal document
included in this evidence pack.

There are 47 pages in total, the rest of the letter has copies of previous correspondence and photos of signage and parking machines.

Do I need to respond and if so what do I need to say? Again thank you for your help and assistance on this. Best regards. 
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #38 on: »
You need to rebut everything Parking Eye says that you disagree with, including - but not limited to - sending the Milton Park Byelaws (Reply #31 above) if you are satisfied that they cover the area you parked and therefore it is not private land as claimed.
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #39 on: »
I'm not sure the OP needs to overcomplicate this with more references to the byelaws - ParkingEye essentially concede the entire appeal themselves:
Quote from: Chelsblue on May 29, 2025, 12:09:22 pm
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

ParkingEye's response fails to rebut the points raised in my appeal. My grounds of appeal are that I am not liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle, as ParkingEye are unable to use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) to recover the charge from me. Helpfully, ParkingEye confirm this in their response, stating "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012".

As ParkingEye accept that they are not using PoFA to recover this charge, only the driver may be liable. The driver has not been identified. I cannot be held liable as the registered keeper and accordingly my appeal must be upheld.

As an example, written quickly, so others may be able to improve.
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #40 on: »
Oh yes, I agree, I’d missed that because I was so hung up on the byelaw issue.
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #41 on: »
+1

However, it is interesting to see PE trying on the same excuse that MET use at Stansted and Gatwick airports. Just because the land is “private” does not mean it cannot be covered by byelaws.

However, the PoFA failure alone is sufficient to quash this.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #42 on: »
Thanks again for your assistance on this matter, before I post, is something like this suitable;

I respectfully submit this response to the evidence provided by ParkingEye. Their submission fails to rebut the key legal grounds on which my appeal is based.

1. ParkingEye Confirm They Are Not Relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
ParkingEye clearly state in their evidence: “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”

This is a crucial admission. If a private parking operator chooses not to rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA, they cannot pursue the registered keeper for the charge if the driver has not been identified.

In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and I have not been identified as the driver. Therefore, under statute and common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me as the keeper.

2. The Land Is Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA
Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control through byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State on 2 May 1994. As such, the land falls outside the definition of “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1), which explicitly excludes land subject to statutory control. Even if ParkingEye had attempted to rely on PoFA (which they have not), they would be barred from doing so due to the nature of the land.

3. No Hirer Liability Applies
I note that ParkingEye have not alleged that I am the hirer of the vehicle, nor have they provided any documentation or evidence of a hire agreement. Even if they were to attempt this, PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 sets out strict requirements for holding a hirer liable—none of which have been fulfilled, and none of which apply if PoFA is not being used.

4. Conclusion

To reiterate:

* ParkingEye admit they are not using PoFA.

* The land in question is not “relevant land” under PoFA.

* The driver has not been identified.

* I am the registered keeper and cannot be held liable under these circumstances.
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #43 on: »
Hello, good morning everyone. Before I submit my post, I just wanted to ensure everything was okay with it, or does it need amending? If somebody could advise, would really appreciate it. I've got this far and I don't want to mess it up. Best regards.
Logged
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
« Reply #44 on: »
I would advise amending this bit in section 1 of your response:

Quote
In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and I have not been identified as the driver. Therefore, under statute and common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me as the keeper.

to

Quote
In such cases, only the driver can be held liable, and the driver has not been identified. Therefore, under statute and common law, there is no lawful basis to transfer liability to me as the keeper.

Did you send or link to a copy of the byelaws when you made the appeal? If so, simply highlight in section 2 that a copy of those byelaws were provided with the initial appeal and the operator has not addressed this issue. Just because land is "private", does not mean that those byelaws do not apply.

Otherwise, good to go.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »
  3. PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge