Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a parking charge at the car park listed in the title.

When the driver of the vehicle entered the car park, they parked in a space that was next to some construction work that is ongoing. The space they parked in was adjacent to a space that had construction fencing partially within it. As a car would not have been able to park in the bay with construction fencing partially within it, the driver parked partially in that bay to increase the space between the vehicle and the vehicle in another adjacent space.

Is this worth appealing?

Their notice lists the term that was breached.

Thanks for the reply.

As said above the notice lists the condition of the car park's term and conditions that were breached. The vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space, so the ticket says the condition that has been breached is "parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space".

I think with some parking notices issued on private land they can be unfair, but this one seems fairer than most. The vehicle wasn't parked within the bay or space which is one of the conditions of the car park. I just wanted to know if it was worth appealing based on the fact that the only reason the vehicle was parked this way is because the space that was being blocked by parking over the line wouldn't have been useable with the construction fencing there. Do you think an appeal saying that much is likely to be rejected on the basis that their rules are the rules and they have been breached?

From a little bit of research done online it seems to suggest that issuing a postal NTK is not a requirement if one has been left on the vehicle which is how this notice was received.

I am a bit dubious of waiting until day 27 as it will mean that the reduced fee is no longer payable.

I have read through some of the other threads on here and it seems that the tactic is to basically keep refusing to identify the driver until it goes to court and then hope they will drop the case right before the court date? Is that the gist of it?

For heavens sake... if you think you deserve the PCN then just go ahead and pay it as the "mugs discount" rate.

No one who is here receiving advice and actually following it pays a penny to UKPC. Even if this were to go all the way to a claim in the county court, I can say with better than 99.9% certainty that it would never reach a hearing and they would discontinue before they have to pay the trial fee.

UKPC rely on most of their victims being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will pay up out of ignorance and fear.

I really can't be bothered if you want to waste good money on a bunch of scammers and so become a part of the problem by continuing to fund the scam.

I hoped that a conventional appeal would be accepted

They don't make money from accepting appeals.

You said to come back nearer to day 27 and then submit an appeal, I assume that's because the notice was attached to the car rather than sent to me in the post?

Yes. In some cases, if the operator receives an appeal before they have requested the Keepers details from the DVLA in order to issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK), they will respond to the appeal (and reject it) without having issued an NtK which invalidates any Keeper liability.

Just use this and you are only appealing as the Keeper... 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:

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 Driver (NtD) 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. UKPC 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Hello, this response was received electronically today. Any recommendation on next steps?