Author Topic: Private Parking Solutions (PPS) - Notice to Keeper - The High Cross Centre, Tottenham  (Read 309 times)

0 Members and 66 Guests are viewing this topic.

Just got this NtK through the post.

images:
https://ibb.co/album/R3WDRP

date of incident:
25/07/25

date of NtK:
29/07/25 (received 04/08/25)


Initial thoughts:

No start and end time, just an "incident time"

That stretch of parking was lacking signage (there was signage elsewhere, but a large gap where the car was parked).. I'm never sure what the requirements are in this regard though, always seems very open to interpretation. I feel like the fact that the site has various different parking situations for different businesses makes it all the more important for there not to be large gaps in signage if there are parking restrictions

Any input much appreciated!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/PFNi1V7tzyXkQyn3A
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qzUukJRD3QKEiZA4A



« Last Edit: August 04, 2025, 05:33:09 pm by beansprout »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA 2012 which means that the Keeper cannot be liable. Easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back when that is rejected and tyou can then prepare your POPLA appeal. No initial appeal to any operator is ever successful.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Cheers! will do

Edit:
Sent.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2025, 05:59:09 pm by beansprout »

Wow, they actually saw sense and cancelled at the informal appeal stage.. thought I'd never see the day!

Quote
Thank you for your communication.

We confirm PCN .... is cancelled, and no further actions will be taken as the case is now closed.

They really took this to heart  ;D
Quote
PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2025, 07:04:32 pm by beansprout »
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Normally I’d suggest buying a lottery ticket, but this is the second initial appeal we've seen won this week.

It’s starting to feel less like luck and more like the BPA and IPC are getting twitchy. With the government’s consultation looming, perhaps they’re finally realising that their reputations—and survival—are on the line. If their members keep rejecting obviously winnable appeals and fleecing motorists, they may find themselves legislated into irrelevance.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Optimistic Optimistic x 1 View List