3. PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat  (Read 883 times)

0 Members and 109 Guests are viewing this topic.

PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« on: »
Hi guys-

The driver of this vehicle has had an email from their apartment block building saying they observed the driver's vehicle unauthorised parking at their apartment block every day since Monday 16th June. Screenshot attached.

it's important to note the driver emailed is not the registered keeper of the vehicle. i believe they have made an assumption to email the driver due to seeing that the driver is a resident of the flat.

They threaten to apply a ticket every day they observe the car on site.

The driver informs me that they have tried multiple times in person to speak to the management of the block of flats to get a permit to park. but have been continuously told "sure, we can sort a permit, will email you". Only to find, it has never been sorted.


The driver has parked here multiple times before as needed to for work and personal reasons but couldn't obtain a permit, despite request.

The keeprer has responded to multiple parking charge letters in the past from this car park, with a template letter scripted up with help from this group- which has successfully cancelled all charges due to NSGL not following protocol. (their signage inadequately displays the £ charge amount and the "evidence" photo they take of the car is always a static one second picture, so doesn't prove the vehicle broke the grace period).


What would be the group's advice here on how to deal with this situation? have the driver claim it isn't their vehicle in response to the email and then accept the multiple letters of parking charge and respond to each with the letter about inadequate evidence or signage in accordance with POPLA?

Or, if the building has a picture or evidence of the vehicle on multiple days back to back from now on- will there not be a possibility to fight this?


(attaching a screenshot of a previous letter that this same building car park has sent to the keeper, to show what they usually send). Note: all previous parking charges have been successfully cancelled after one letter.

thanks as always for your help!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #1 on: »
Are they a tenant and if so what does their tenancy agreement say about parking?
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #2 on: »
You've redacted the date the notice was issued. Leave ALL dates and times visible!!!!

Are you the Keeper that has received the postal Notice to Keeper? If the driver is not the Keeper then they will not have received anything from NSGL unless the Keeper has blabbed the drivers identity to them.

The driver of a the vehicle is ALWAYS the liable party. The problem for the operator is that they have no idea of the drivers identity unless it is blabbed to them by the known Keeper.

The can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper if the operator fully complies with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012. Whilst they claim Keeper liability under POFA in that Notice to Keeper (NtK), they have NOT actually complied with paragraph 9(2)(a) because there is no period of parking stated.

So, whilst the Keeper cannot be liable as long as the drivers identity is unknown, there's also the fact that even if the driver is identified, there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been formed with the driver.

So, in trying to understand what it is you want from us, are you asking as the Keeper or not? It matters not whether you were the driver or noted no one needs to know if you were or were not.

What does also matter is whether the driver is a resident at the location. If they are, ,then we need to know what their AST/lease says about parking. What it doesn't say about parking is equally important.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #3 on: »
The keeper has had multiple charges like this from this exact carpark, wrongly enforcing parking charges with evidential photos that only show the car parked for less than 1 minute.

Based on a letter drafted up from this group, that has been re used and slightly edited each time, the keeper has had every charge cancelled, so thankyou for your help.


This time, one small change to the NtK. There is an "observed from and observed to" time on the NtK. Despite the evidence photos only showing 48 seconds.

just wondered if the same sort of drafted letter would be fine to use in this situation? that the short time scale of photos as evidence is enough to cancel the charge?


See attached, a pervious example of a letter that the keeper usually sends, drafted from your help in this. i imagine they can send something similar this time , but with a slight tweak to the observation period section>?

thankyou for all your help

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: NSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #4 on: »
Hi both, thankyou for your responses.

Sorry- my previous message wasn't very clear.


The driver is a resident at this location. the keeper is not.

To tell the full backstory clearly; the driver needs to park the car at the car park on site of their apartment block.

The apartment block hires out parking spots for £200 p/m. The driver has tried to negotiate a parking spot hire whilst the car is needed there. (it is for family emergencies/ ferrying grandparents between hospital visits).


The apartment block has refused a parking spot, despite there being spaces on site.


I will attach the info in the lease below.


The driver has pleaded, to no avail.

There has been no written confirmation from the driver to the apartment block that they are the driver of the vehicle. The apartment block has observed the person (because they know the person visually). but there has been no written communication of the driver admitting they are the driver. the staff on site just know who they are.


The building block has issued a warning saying they will manually enforce a parking charge for every day back to back that the car is observed on site. The driver needs the car here for the personal reasons but is denied a parking spot.
So is willing to take the risk and fight the multiple fines/ ignore them until a permit is offered.

This is because the driver has had multiple previous parking charges cancelled from this venue because NSGL have not followed POPLA protocol. (tHANKS to this group's wonderful advice)


It is a confrontational situation i know, but seems to be the driver's only option which is a real shame.

Based on your advice, will multiple back to back fines are issued (even if not followed POPLA code properly), is it likely this is a strong case in court, and the tenant is facing a losing battle?

The NSGL and apartment block have been incredibly sloppy in there issuing of charges so far, that was what the tenant was hoping would continue in his favour.

but if you advise that with this being a repeat daily charge (even if only observed parking with a 60s set of evidence photos eveery day), that it's impossible/ difficult to stop this being escalated to court, then the driver will have to concede.

The hope is, that with the POPLA code not followed on every single charge issued, that all charges will be null and void?

Sorry for the difficult case, i appreciate any guidance if you have any at all on the matter.


Below evidence attached:

- a copy of PREVIOUS charges issued for this car park (*to show how sloppy they usually are*)

- the tenacy agreement on parking


Thankyou so much for any help

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #5 on: »
But only the Keeper can deal with the PCNs unless they name you as the driver, in which case, you would have no protection.

Of the two NtK's you've shown us, one is PoFA compliant and one isn't. The one with no observation time is not compliant and so the Keeper cannot be liable, even though they are claiming keeper liability.

The snippet you've show from the lease clause is clear: no parking without a licence. There’s no implied right to park, and the refusal to grant a licence—even if unreasonable—doesn’t create a defence in contract law.

The driver has no contractual right to park, and the lease explicitly prohibits it without a licence. In other words, you're screwed as far as I can see.

However, even if the lease prohibits parking, NSGL must still comply with PoFA to enforce charges against the Keeper. If they don’t, the Keeper can’t be held liable. Each PCN must stand on its own legal footing, regardless of the lease clause.

The lease clause is a legal hurdle, not a death sentence. As the driver, your best hope lies in procedural flaws in each PCN.

I don't quite understand your mentioning of "NSGL have not followed POPLA protocol".  I also don't quite understand the relationship between the driver and the Keeper. If the Keeper is not a resident, then how are you being informed about the PCNs? Have all the PCNs been postal Notices to Keeper (NtK) or are some windscreen Notices to Driver (NtD)?

Because of the problem with your lease, I don't think we can help you very much here and you may want to seek advice elsewhere on how to challenge or dispute the terms of your lease. One hope you may want to explore is whether the contract between NSGL and the management company or the landlord is valid. You would hopefully get a view of that if you were to appeal to POPLA. Certainly if it ever goes to court, you can put them to strict proof of a valid contract to operate and issue PCNs at the location and that that permission flows from the landowner.

For now, based on the two NtKs you showed us, it is the Keeper that is the only person that can deal with them. One is problematic and the other is easily defended. If the Keeper transfers liability to you as the driver, then you have to deal with them and you would be liable for both, irrespective of the PoFA failure in one of them. You could defend on the basis that no observation time means that there is no evidence that any contract was entered into by the driver.

It's all a bit FUBAR.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #6 on: »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #7 on: »
Ok thankyou-

I am dealing with the response letters for the keeper. the keeper has not made the identity of the driver known to NSGL.


Historically, the letters that the keeper has recieved from this NSGL car park before have never had an observed from and observed till time on them. Hence the easy defence.

It's only been the last couple of charges now that have had the times written. But the picture evidence in support is only showing the car parked for 50s.

So my questions in defence of the keeper/ to deny any contract formed with the car park are as follows:


- if the letter has an observed from and observed until time stated but the picture evidence attached online NSGL site only have 5 pictures of the car within 50s. Is that a strong enough case to defend and to deny any contract formed on grounds of not complying with PoFA?

- In a previous defence letter you drafted for me- the signage was inadequate and only has the £100 charge written in very small letters. Even if the letter has an observed time from and until stated, is the inadequate signage itself enough to defend any contract for a while?


Longer term, in simple terms:

- if NSGL/ the block of flats are sending a charge every day for weeks, even if the signage is in breach of PoFA and the photograph evidence they attach to every letter is inadequate every time and is easily defendable to show entering no contract between driver and car pakr... is it likely that despite their breaches of PoFA in every letter, do they still have a strong argument to take the keeper to court due to the amount of letters sent if there is a build of multiple (say 10 or more letters)?

So in simple terms, is the driver/ keeper screwed even if NSGL evidence and letters have inadequate evidence and in breach of PoFA?


Final question, the car park has ANPR camera too on entry. The driver seems to have evaded it every time. if driver gets caught on the ANPR on entry and leaving- will the defence against any NSGL charge be virtually zero/ minimal, as the timings and picture evidence will be so clear? Even with the inadequate signage?


I will attach a picture of the signage which you advised previously was inadequate, and the support picture evidence online which shows the car only parked for 50s (despite the letter claiming longer). As you can see, they attach 5 pictures. the first is only a matter of seconds before the last.

thankyou, this is helping me gain a lot of clarity in our defence until the driver can find a car park to legitimately keep the car.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: PSGL charge. - No permit - Blackhorse mills, London
« Reply #8 on: »
Hi there- yes indeed it is. I just wanted to keep this specific reply separate so I could have a clear response on how to send a letter to cancel this exact NSGL charge?

We discussed briefly in the other thread but now that they have put an observed from and observed until time in the letter, I may have to tweak the letter of response you drafted for me before.


I want to attach below, a previous letter od response you drafted for me and just ask if i REMOVE the section about them not having an observation time in the letter, is it ok for me to send the letter just mentioning the inaqeduate picture proof evidence and the inadequate signage?

Basically, how can i respond to this case now? Is it still ok to send the same letter of response just instead stating that "although you have mentioned observing the car for a long period, the picture evidence only shows the car for 60s"

will that be enough to cancel the charge? (along with the inadequate signage)

Many thanks as always

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #9 on: »
If they can put together a claim for multiple parking charges then they will be incentivised to pursue it. However, they cannot keep submitting multiple claims for essentially the same contravention for the same vehicle at the same location for the same alleged breach of contract.

The sign is arguable not compliant with POFA and certainly failed Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule. You could also argue that it is not compliant with the CRA. However, this is all academic unless they actually issue a claim.

It is up to you if or how you want to fight this. It is a simple fact that there is a clause in your lease that says you have to obtain a permit to park at the property. the is the stumbling point for you.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #10 on: »
I have merged this and your other thread, as, whilst they are for now separate cases, if taken to court they'd likely be done together as one claim.
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #11 on: »
Ah- i was trying to keep the threads separate as they were addressing different questions.

Could either of you please let me know if the previous example of the defence letter i used for their previous NtK is ok to use (minus the comment about the lack of observation time on the letter and instead just mentioning the insufficient time on the pictures used for "evidence". where the car is only pictured for 60s)

many thanks for your help!
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #12 on: »
Quote from: b789 on July 07, 2025, 02:05:10 pm
If they can put together a claim for multiple parking charges then they will be incentivised to pursue it. However, they cannot keep submitting multiple claims for essentially the same contravention for the same vehicle at the same location for the same alleged breach of contract.

The sign is arguable not compliant with POFA and certainly failed Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule. You could also argue that it is not compliant with the CRA. However, this is all academic unless they actually issue a claim.

It is up to you if or how you want to fight this. It is a simple fact that there is a clause in your lease that says you have to obtain a permit to park at the property. the is the stumbling point for you.

^^ Please could you further clarify a) "they cannot keep submitting multiple claims for essentially the same contravention for the same vehicle at the same location for the same alleged breach of contract." what do you mean by this? are you saying because the car is constantly parked there long term, it's just one contravention?

b) could you expand on this: "It is up to you if or how you want to fight this." i will need to fight it for a few weeks if there is a chance they are not following PoFa properly, I will try and have every letter overturned. until i can move the car away after the family health emergency i am dealing with.

Should i just draft a letter of response asking them to cancel it  due to 1) inadequate signage and 2) picture evidence only showing the car stationary for 50s?

Many thanks as always for the help.
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #13 on: »
Quote
are you saying because the car is constantly parked there long term, it's just one contravention?
No - every time the car is parked would be a separate parking event. Additionally, in general, they can issue 1 charge per 24 hour period if the vehicle remains there longer than that, although that'd depend on the signage.

What b789 is saying is that if they want to take you to court to recover the charges, then they should do so as 1 claim for all the charges they want to recover. What they shouldn't do is issue a court claim for 1 ticket, then another etc. etc.
Logged
Re: PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat
« Reply #14 on: »
ok thankyou! do you have any guidance on the other questions stated above please?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. PSGL car park- driver is unauthorised parking at their own flat