DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112130--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS Nuneaton Tim Hortons PCN
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 5, 2026, 1:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have they provided a POPLA code?
#Post#: 112185--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS Nuneaton Tim Hortons PCN
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 5, 2026, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unlikely, the PPC is an IPC member. So unless keroppi is lucky
enough to join the IAS 4% club which with the above appeal
grounds is extremely unlikely, it's time to either rethink the
strategy or wait for the debt collectors letters. Time to
question the lack of of a period of parking on the PCN?
From the SSCoP
NOTE 2: The consideration period may end earlier than the times
prescribed in Annex B
where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms
and conditions applying
(whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for
example be evidenced by
the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying
the applicable parking
tariff, or remaining on the controlled land for more than 5
minutes. See Annex B Table B.1
So I would challenge them as to why they are assuming the driver
accepted the terms and conditions, do they have proof the driver
left site? All they have provided is a single observation of the
vehicle clearly moving on the site. The two images don't match
and the plate from the first image isn't even visible in the
image you've uploaded.
So to summarise
The vehicle is clearly not parked in the image on the PCN.
There's no specified period of parking (so can't infer the
driver accepted the terms and conditions by staying longer than
the 5 minute consideration period).
There's no evidence the driver had accepted the terms and
conditions so no contract can have been entered into.
No contract entered into no liability for the driver or the
keeper.
Personally I'd steer clear of arguing the semantics of whether
the PCN wording is POFA compliant, it never seems to work for
first or second stage appeals, in fact I don't think we seen it
work at any point in the process yet.
#Post#: 112225--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS Nuneaton Tim Hortons PCN
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 6, 2026, 1:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's a good appeal basis but I disagree on the PoFA angle when
it is so obvious that wording is missing.
What you will need to do is to lead the assessor 'by the nose'
to the exact requirements of PoFA.
Also, in my appeal I would very clearly and, very specifically,
invite the parking operator to provide a copy of their NtK where
they specifically indicate where their document satisfies the
missing PoFA terms - the operator will of course skip over your
request - at which point you'll be able to comment on that
during the 'comments on the operators evidence' stage.
For information, there have been successful appeals on the most
minor wording deviations - this is one;
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered
keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning
the registered keeper that they will be liable for the charge if
the parking operator is not provided with the name and address
of the driver. PoFA requires the PCN to state that the notice is
passed to the driver, once the details have been provided to the
operator. In this case, the PCN in question does not mention
this, and therefore the parking operator has failed to transfer
the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant has
raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the
appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page