Hi All
My first post on FTLA (RIP Pepipoo).
Can folks help me with a situation. I think I have the right idea but would value the experience of those on this site as certainly those on Pepipoo were amazing.
A driver entered an empty roadside pub car park temporarily. They did not leave the car and did not switch off the engine. They were in the car for around 3-4 minutes (they think).
If I am correct ( ? ) that is not parking as the driver remained in the vehicle and car engine was still on.
A 'Parking Charge' from PCS on behalf of PESS has since been sent to the registered car owners address. All of which appears pretty much locked down since the old private carpark loopholes have been sewn up. But the letter states that the Parking Charge was issued following observation by a warden operated camera. They do not offer any access to that footage for verification or indeed for how long the car was observed and or for what offence was committed save the note of parking on private land.
It gives the usual - needs to be paid in 14 days - or otherwise the charge escalates etc.
I have not uploaded the letter as I would ordinarily or have posted a belated image of the sign in the car park as I think this might be straight forward ...
At this moment in time I was hoping that I am correct in being able to reply back to PCS to explain that the driver was 'not' parked and although they had entered the designated area they did not disengage the engine or leave the vehicle and so had not parked the vehicle as stated. Instead they decided after a few minutes that the terms of parking in the area were not satisfactory and so promptly left the car park immediately after seeking telephone advice. Going on to say : if in doubt with my explanation to please forward to me a copy of the footage that clearly demonstrates that the car had parked and the driver had left.
Any thoughts and / or advice would be most welcome.
Thanks
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Stopping, remaining in the car, leaving the engine running can be parking.
There is a minimum time to examine the contract conditions and decide not to accept them and leave, 5 minutes at least.
PCS notices seem to omit the period of parking so are not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable for the driver’s actions. So as long as the driver’s identity is not revealed they will ultimately lose.
However you need to upload documents because otherwise we’re guessing.
If I am correct ( ? ) that is not parking as the driver remained in the vehicle and car engine was still on.
Whether or not a car is 'parked' is dependent on the facts of the case. It's not as black and white as saying that as long as the driver is in the car and the engine is on, the car isn't parked. As a daft example to illustrate this - if you entered a car park and stayed there with the engine idling for 2 hours, you'd struggle to argue you weren't parked.
Duration of stay is more likely to be useful here. Driver's must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consider the terms on offer and decide whether they accept them. This period must be at least 5 minutes, so if the stay was less than that, an argument can be made that no contract was formed.
You mention that the driver sought telephone advice, I assume you mean they phoned the car park operator using a number provided on the signage? If so, keep hold of the record of this in case it is useful later.
In the meantime - please read the following thread and provide as much of the info it asks for as you can:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide. Better for us to consider as many angles of challenge as we can.
Thank to you both : es ever some very valid points.
I have updated my thread to include the letter that was sent by PCS. I would need to visit the site if I were also to upload whatever notices there are.
For purposes of confidentiality and also to prevent PCS (who I assume monitor this site) from also being able to identify me or the specific Parking Charge I have also removed some further data but have noted - in pen - that this data does exist.
As for timing, there is no stated observation time or start/end of time of issue. There is a simply a 00:00:00 time given for time of issue which in the letter is referred to as '... the period of parking to which the charge relates to immediately preceding the time of issue'.
As for the real time idling in the area : this was less than 5 minutes and so any video footage would not be able to verify otherwise.
I think you’re overly paranoid in thinking that PCS, who are incompetent in so many ways, are spending their time monitoring sites like this.
That said, it’s pretty clear without seeing the details that the notice you received is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to hold the registered keeper liable in place of the driver.
You should be able to construct an appropriate appeal based on similar posts here.
Thanks for that. I have been pouring not only over the site but also the legislation link kindly provided by DWMB2 in their reply and think that the points that are not PoFa12 compliant are :
1. No ‘Period of Parking’ Specified
The NtK merely presents a single timestamp. However, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” A single point in time cannot logically represent a period. This issue was addressed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where it was held that:
“A timestamp alone is insufficient to demonstrate a period of parking.”
This NtK therefore fails to evidence any contravention, and it does not establish the basis for keeper liability.
2. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified
The operator has not identified the driver, nor have they demonstrated any legal basis to assume that the Keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan held:
“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving…”
No evidence has been provided to suggest who was driving at the time. Since PoFA conditions have not been met (as outlined above), the operator cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. There is no driver identification, and no basis for keeper liability.
Is there anything else ?
Also should I not preface all of this by stating that the driver was in the area for less than 5 minutes and therefore did not enter into a contract for the purposes of parking etc.
Finally : should I write back now with the above or wait until POPLA so that they do not reissue a new letter and revise some of the above points ?
Cheers
You only get a POPLA code when (I should say “if” but most operators automatically reject all appeals anyway) your appeal is rejected by the operator.
You should include the <5 minute point also, I think.
@Tom Cruise, take your tin-foil hat off and post the Notice to Keeper with ALL DATES and times visible. So what if the interweb scouring team of tech savvy hooded "Yoofs" discover your post on here. What on earth do you imagine they could possibly do with that knowledge? Don't you realise that this covert team have search for over 40,000 private Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) that are issued every single DAY?
Once you show us the the dates and times on the NtK, we can provide proper advice that will assist you. Until then, you may want to do something about the unfounded paranoia.
I'm working on the basis that it's that Tom Cruise we're advising
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Funny x 1
View List