DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12294--------------------------------------------------
Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DW190
Date: December 12, 2023, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Grandaughters car got a ticket on this recently infested car
park by CE. The access to the car park is from a side street
and not from the address shown on the PCN. The PCN also shows a
charge to be added should it go to Debt Collection Agents.
Links to the PCN below. Photos of car park will be added later.
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AsPjQGVPpU0yxjUvAMr9PphFQR_s?e=J92rF9
HTML https://1drv.ms/i/s!AsPjQGVPpU0yxjZtP9W03xIOn3ZC?e=tUOyFy
Thanks for looking.
#Post#: 12298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 12, 2023, 6:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We will need to see photos of the car park and in particular the
signage, its layout and its contents.
Whilst we're waiting for that - I can't see any obvious
technical defects with the notice, it would appear to be PoFA
compliant in order for the Registered Keeper to be held liable.
Can you tell us a little more about the parking event (i.e. why
the vehicle was parked there, if they had, or attempted to get,
the 'permit' that the PCN says was required etc.) to see if that
offers any meritorious defence?
#Post#: 12352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DW190
Date: December 13, 2023, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Heres a link to the pics of the site. As you enter from one
side the entrance signs are not fully visible and the signs
within the site are minute print.
HTML https://1drv.ms/f/s!AsPjQGVPpU0yxjgiYyBMW8cmpGb2?e=u2tCkx
#Post#: 12354--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 13, 2023, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Can you tell us a little more about the parking event (i.e.
why the vehicle was parked there, if they had, or attempted to
get, the 'permit' that the PCN says was required etc.) to see if
that offers any meritorious defence?
>
--- End Quote ---
We could do with the answer to this to see what other avenues
there are to explore.
I'm not sure there's much prospect in the argument around the
location being inaccurate. The Protection of Freedoms Act
Schedule 4 says that they must 'specify' the relevant land on
which the parking incident took place, if they want to hold the
registered keeper liable. I think it might be difficult to argue
successfully that the location given fails to do that, but see
if others have differing views.
From what you've shown us so far, the arguments that your
granddaughter could use are:
Signage visibility:
I can see how the entrance signage could be missed if entering
the car park from the angle shown in your first image. Although
it might be difficult to argue that the signage was not there to
be seen - despite being a small car park, in addition to the
entrance sign you appear to have shown us another 4 signs. Some
of those could of course have been obscured by cars, but at
least one is raised up on a pole.
Forbidding signage:
The signage mentions the car park is for Permit Holders Only. It
is therefore not clear what consideration is being offered to
non-permit holders. The signage could therefore be argued to be
forbidding and therefore unable to create a contract. No
contract = no money owed. The downside of this argument is that
neither CE nor POPLA would accept it, so your granddaughter
would need to be prepared for the potential of having to argue
this to a judge in the county court (small claims track), CE can
be litigious.
#Post#: 12372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DW190
Date: December 13, 2023, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
>
> Can you tell us a little more about the parking event (i.e.
why the vehicle was parked there, if they had, or attempted to
get, the 'permit' that the PCN says was required etc.) to see if
that offers any meritorious defence?
>
--- End Quote ---
The driver has parked there many times before CE were contracted
and was unaware there had been any change until the RK received
the PCN.
I have established that the land is owned by a small investment
Company and not the business on the notice. It doesnt show any
lease on Land Registry, only the title of the Investment Co.
#Post#: 12437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 14, 2023, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK - It would seem then that they did not have a 'legitimate'
reason for parking on the private land, so no avenues in that.
Looking at ownership, I imagine the Land Registry would not tell
you if the restaurant are renting the land. Civil Enforcement
will need a contract with the landholder allowing them to issue
parking charges. They won't show you a copy, you'd need to
appeal, be rejected, and then appeal to POPLA putting Civil
Enforcement to proof that they have such a contract. This is of
course a risk.
#Post#: 12445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: December 14, 2023, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DW190 link ---
>
> The driver has parked there many times before CE were
contracted and was unaware there had been any change until the
RK received the PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
There might be a bit of mileage in this (when coupled with the
poor signage at the entrance used by the driver). As a member of
the BPA, the operator is obliged to comply with the BPA AOS Code
of Practice, section 19.10 of which reads as follows:-
19.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that
materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms
and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose
liability where none previously existed then you must consider a
transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and
familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be
the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance
and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and
conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors
who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the
new ones.
Can the driver argue that the landowner previously permitted
unrestricted parking and insufficient notice was given for the
change? Just a thought...
#Post#: 12448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 14, 2023, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Can the driver argue that the landowner previously permitted
unrestricted parking
--- End Quote ---
It's an avenue to explore.
Although I note from Google Street View that before the arrival
of Civil Enforcement there appeared to be a couple of fairly
conspicuous signs saying "TURKIS CHARGRILL PRIVATE PARKING".
This isn't of course a means of enforcement, nor does it
diminish the requirement to make a change in T&Cs clear, but
might lead an adjudicator or judge to disagree that the
landowner previously accepted unrestricted parking.
#Post#: 12454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DW190
Date: December 14, 2023, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Land Registry Doc attached for the land
Companies House for the business:
HTML https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14257192/officers
Somewhere along the line a contract must flow from the land
owner. Nothing on Land Reg doc indicates any lease.
As per the previous signs on street view an estate agent
appeared to share the car park. The estate agent is still there
but their sign have been removed from the car park.
I may give it a run and put them to strict proof that a contract
flows from the landowner.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 12457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Newly Infested Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 14, 2023, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DW190 link ---
>
> I may give it a run and put them to strict proof that a
contract flows from the landowner.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just for the sake of clarity, if the notice is addressed to your
granddaughter, then any appeal should be in her name, Civil
Enforcement won't entertain one in your name.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page