DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115984--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN overstaying at Costa Coffee Green Meadow, Pontyclun
DIR By: Y Cymro
Date: April 15, 2026, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Point #1 isn't wrong, per se, the OP received the notice when
he received it. Proving the same is another matter.
>
> It would seem the landowner's contract with ParkingEye is such
that there is a fee for cancellation - I'd be pressing the
landowner to cover this fee, if it is their system that has
failed.
>
--- End Quote ---
I believe though will need to confirm that CoP requires that a
request to cancel an NTK by the landowner must be complied with
by the parking company. Also, I don’t think there’s mention of
a supplementary invoice being sent to the registered keeper.
In any case, wouldn’t this supplementary invoice/additional
charge need to be included on the NTK?
#Post#: 115985--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN overstaying at Costa Coffee Green Meadow, Pontyclun
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 15, 2026, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not aware of any such provision in the CoP off the top of my
head.
Thinking aloud, one could potentially run the argument that in
circumstances where the landowner is of the view that the charge
should not be upheld, that the charge no longer passes the test
of being commercially justifiable, as established in ParkingEye
vs Beavis.
--- Quote from: Y Cymro link ---
>
> In any case, wouldn’t this supplementary invoice/additional
charge need to be included on the NTK?
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not a supplementary or additional charge. It's the existing
£100 parking charge - they're saying they'll accept £20 to
dispose of it.
#Post#: 115992--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN overstaying at Costa Coffee Green Meadow, Pontyclun
DIR By: Y Cymro
Date: April 15, 2026, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I'm not aware of any such provision in the CoP off the top of
my head.
>
> Thinking aloud, one could potentially run the argument that in
circumstances where the landowner is of the view that the charge
should not be upheld, that the charge no longer passes the test
of being commercially justifiable, as established in ParkingEye
vs Beavis.
>
--- End Quote ---
You’re right, having checked I can find no requirement in CoP
for cancellation.
I agree with your second paragraph, which I interpret as:
A parking operator’s authority to issue and enforce charges
derives solely from the landowner. When the landowner instructs
cancellation of a specific PCN, the operator’s authority to
pursue that charge is withdrawn. Any continued enforcement is
therefore beyond their authority, contrary to CoP Section 7, and
cannot give rise to keeper liability under POFA.
Does that sound sensible, or am I off the mark?
#Post#: 116000--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN overstaying at Costa Coffee Green Meadow, Pontyclun
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 15, 2026, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That isn't quite what I meant.
ParkingEye's authority to issue parking charges on the land
derives from the terms of their contract with the landowner.
Parking Charges are based on a contract between the driver and
ParkingEye. Whether the landowner can insist that ParkingEye
waive any such contractual charges on their instruction would
seem to depend on what the contract between ParkingEye and the
landowner says about cancellations.
My point was that the commercial justification argument that won
the Beavis case may be argued not to apply here if the landowner
agrees that the terms weren't breached. Parking Charges are
supposed to have a deterrent effect... What behaviour is being
deterred by penalising someone who has austensibly complied with
the terms and conditions of parking? (On this basis the primary
argument would just be that the terms weren't breached)
Has there been any explanation as to why the charge was issued
if the VRM was entered? Technical error?
#Post#: 116002--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN overstaying at Costa Coffee Green Meadow, Pontyclun
DIR By: Y Cymro
Date: April 15, 2026, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your considered reply.
Regarding the VRM there’s been no check against any white list
as far as I know, simply that the Costa manager accepted my word
that I’d entered the VRM and she then requested the PO to cancel
the PCN. I don’t know whether it was system failure or my
mistyping the reg which invoked the PCN.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page