DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: September 14, 2024, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I went back to site today to get some additional photos/video.
Here's the driver's-eye-view video I made of accessing the site:
HTML https://youtu.be/BjsleI5ljhk?feature=shared
There is a sign upon entering the site, but it is anything but
prominent. It's pretty much hidden behind a buttress on an
adjoining building:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/d45XpJA.jpeg
Full sign:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/28p9ptH.jpeg
Text of warning signs:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/d2jzKsT.jpeg
And here's the general 'turn-in' view, showing just how obscured
the entry sign is:
[img width=1100
height=825]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/abG8bT4.jpeg[/img]
Any thoughts? Let me know if there are any more images etc.,
that might be useful.
#Post#: 36830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: September 14, 2024, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Keep the video as the entrance sign is not even visible as you
go in. Have a read of page 27 of the IPC Code of Practice (CoP)
and tell us if you think that signs conforms to the
requirements?
IPC Code of Practice v9
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC%20Code%20of%20PracticeV9%20V4.pdf
#Post#: 36831--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: September 14, 2024, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Even from close up that entrance sign is faded to the point of
near illegibility.
#Post#: 36881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: September 14, 2024, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2688.msg36830#msg36830
date=1726317024]
Keep the video as the entrance sign is not even visible as you
go in. Have a read of page 27 of the IPC Code of Practice (CoP)
and tell us if you think that signs conforms to the
requirements?
IPC Code of Practice v9
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC%20Code%20of%20PracticeV9%20V4.pdf
[/quote]
It seems to be a veritable smorgasbord of ineptitude...
Entry Sign
[list]
[li]Illegible based on the likely position of the motorist in
relation to the sign[/li]
[li]Fading has reduced colour contrast[/li]
[li]Sign not made of suitably robust material[/li]
[li]Type of parking not made clear[/li]
[li]No Group 1 wording present[/li]
[li]Text smaller than prescribed minimum capital height[/li]
[li]Sign not positioned in driver's line of sight[/li]
[li]Presence of blue/white 'P' infers an invitation to park,
despite are being Controlled Land[/li]
[/list]
T&Cs Sign
[list]
[li]No identification of 'The Creditor'[/li]
[/list]
Anything I've missed here?
#Post#: 36882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: DWMB2 Date: September 14, 2024, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Those are all useful points... In terms of the order in which
you present, bear in mind that in the Code of Practice, "should"
is not the same as "must".
Things that the code says they "must" do should (no pun
intended) in my view be afforded more prominence in any
appeal/Defence than things it says they "should" do, which
implies something which is good practice, but not necessarily
mandatory.
As an example, the fact that their signs are not made of
suitably robust matierial isn't all that important on its own,
but, this has led to the text becoming illegible, which is
important, as a motorist cannot be bound by terms that have not
been adequately brought to his attention.
#Post#: 43211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Emil Date: October 30, 2024, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I just came across this thread. It might be useful to know that
the faded sign is attached to a building that is not part of the
St Anne's Quarter development, and may refer to the area around
the edge of Dragon Hall, King Street. The Orbit visitor parking
area, and another nearby has clear signage displayed. Two yellow
signs can be seen on the blue hoardings in the photo provided by
the OP.
#Post#: 50699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: December 21, 2024, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All
A quick update on this one. I've received a couple of the usual
chaser letters from BW Legal followed, today, by the below
'Letter of Claim':
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Euhu8pe.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/J1Hbzk0.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/fptiOM9.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/s20zE2O.jpeg[/img]
The enclosures are pretty pro-forma - an 'Information Sheet'
written in the third-person to give the impression of
independent advice, a 'Reply Form' written in the same way, and
a BW Legal-branded 'Income & Expenditure Form' - all designed,
one assumes, to give the impression of legitimacy to the current
charade.
Two questions arise from this:
Does the 'Letter of Claim' meet the standard as required by the
pre-action protocol?
For those with experience of BW Legal - how often do they tend
to follow through on their threats of legal action?
Thanks!
#Post#: 50709--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: December 21, 2024, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The LoC is not fully compliant in that it does not explain how
the original charge of £100 has now become £160.
Respond to it, any time before 16th January with the following:
[quote]Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 17th December 2024
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as
follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from
your records to ensure compliance with data protection
obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court
proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive
and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the
principles established by the Government, who described such
practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain
from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding
this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require
specific answers to the following questions:
[indent]1. Does the additional £60 represent what you describe
as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or
inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I,
as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT
liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notice (PCN), is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?[/indent]
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions
with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the
implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while
simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client
– with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations
due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions
about the legality and ethics of your and your clients
practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this
matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues
will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust
defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,

[YOUR NAME][/quote]
#Post#: 51120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: Snudge88 Date: December 27, 2024, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789, I emailed them your recommended communication, and
received the below response:
"Good Afternoon
We write with regards to the above matter and your contact email
received.
Please find the attached zip file, containing photographs of
your vehicle, parked without authorisation during the
contravention, as well as the Notice to Keeper issued by our
Client.
Please note that Debt recovery costs are contractually agreed by
the motorist when visiting the car park. They only apply when
the opportunity to pay the parking charge has expired and the
parking company has been forced to commence debt recovery
activities. Such contractual costs are recognised by the courts
as covering debt recovery activity between the expiry of the
parking charge notice and the commencement of litigation,
including pre-litigation correspondence.
The fees we charge our clients for our services are subject to
VAT. However, these are separate and distinct from contractual
debt recovery costs recoverable by our client from the motorist.
We must also note that this would not negate the Parking Charge
issued to you, as your vehicle was not authorised to park
in-situ, as no valid permit or virtual permit was found by the
Parking Attendant at the time of the contravention, nor any
permit displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle.
In regards to your second point, The Charge you have been issued
with represents the breach of a core term within the parking
contract which was formed when your vehicle entered and remained
on private land in excess of the grace period and subsequently
breached when your vehicle parked without authorisation.
Furthermore, in 2015, the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v
Beavis confirmed that the parking charge was not about loss, but
a legitimate charge to deter motorists from breaching the
contract under which they are permitted to use the car park.
Please be advised, we hold photographic evidence of the PCN
affixed to your vehicle on the date of contravention, and have
attached it to the email, showing it was issued correctly, and
it can be assumed you received the PCN as a result. If an
unauthorised third party removed this PCN from the vehicle after
it was issued, this is no fault of our Client's.
We would further note that the vehicle was parked directly
beside our Client’s clear signage, making motorists aware of the
contractual agreement and charges entered by entering and/or
remaining on the land.
We trust this clarifies the matter.
Should you have any further enquiries, please use the below
methods of communication."
Looks like a mix of boilerplate, and responses to the specific
points that you recommended that I make.
Any particular thoughts? Or is now the time to sit tight and see
if a court form arrives?
#Post#: 51126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Norwich Traffic Control PCN - Unauthorised Parking - St Anne
's Quarter, Norwich
By: b789 Date: December 27, 2024, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Boilerplate response but you may as well have a bit of fun with
them by responding with the following:
[quote]Dear Sirs,
Re: Your Response to My Letter of 17th December 2024
I acknowledge receipt of your email and attached documents.
However, your response does not adequately address the points
raised in my previous correspondence. I will reiterate and
expand on my concerns below.
1. Debt Recovery Costs
You claim that the £60 "debt recovery" fee is contractually
agreed upon when entering the car park. This is categorically
disputed.
[indent]• Lack of Contractual Basis: The signage at the location
forms the basis of any purported contract. If the £60 debt
recovery fee is not explicitly mentioned on the sign, it cannot
be considered part of the terms agreed upon by motorists. Please
provide photographic evidence of the exact signage in place at
the time of the alleged contravention, showing that it clearly
states this additional fee as part of the terms.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015: Even if such a charge were mentioned
(which is denied), any term imposing an arbitrary £60 penalty
would likely be deemed an unfair contract term and
unenforceable.
• VAT Clarification: While you assert that your VAT-liable
services are distinct, this does not explain how the £60 is
calculated or why it should be recoverable from the motorist.
Provide a clear breakdown of this charge and its VAT
treatment.[/indent]
Without evidence that the £60 charge was explicitly agreed upon
and prominently displayed on the signage, this fee is
unenforceable.
2. Nature of the Alleged Parking Charge
Your response suggests the parking charge is for breach of
contract, yet you have also implied it is a contractual fee.
This inconsistency is misleading. Please clarify:
[indent]• Was the parking charge issued as damages for a breach
of contract or as a fee for a contractual service?
• If it is for breach of contract, provide evidence of how the
charge is a legitimate reflection of the breach. If it is a fee,
explain how the “core terms” of the contract were agreed upon by
a motorist who neither parked nor authorised any contractual
agreement.[/indent]
3. Signage and Contractual Clarity
You assert that the vehicle was parked directly beside your
client’s signage, making the terms of the contract clear.
However, proximity to a sign does not necessarily equate to an
acceptance of its terms, especially if the sign is unclear,
ambiguous, or fails to meet legal and regulatory standards.
I require the following evidence to properly assess the validity
of your claim:
[indent]• Photographs of the Signage: Clear, timestamped
photographs of the specific sign next to which the vehicle was
parked. These should demonstrate the content, visibility, and
clarity of the sign, including any relevant lighting or
obstructions present at the time of the alleged contravention.
• Compliance with the IPC Code of Practice: Evidence that the
signage complies with the International Parking Community (IPC)
Code of Practice, specifically regarding font size, contrast,
placement, and visibility.
• Reference to Additional Charges: If you assert that the £60
debt recovery fee is enforceable, you must provide evidence that
this charge was clearly displayed on the sign. Any terms not
prominently displayed cannot form part of a purported
contract.[/indent]
Simply parking near a sign does not amount to unequivocal
acceptance of its terms, particularly if those terms are
unclear, inconspicuous, or inconsistent with regulatory
standards. If the sign failed to make the terms of the alleged
contract clear, any claim of breach is invalid.
4. NtK and NtD Non-Compliance with PoFA
As the Registered Keeper responding to this Letter of Claim, I
note that both the Notice to Driver (NtD) and the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) fail to comply with the statutory requirements of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, they
do not meet the requirement to "specify the period of parking"
as mandated by paragraphs 7(2)(a) (NtD) and 8(2)(a) (NtK).
Failure to Specify "Period of Parking"
[indent]• The NtD and NtK both provide only a single timestamp
of 0948, which does not constitute a "period of parking" as
required under PoFA. A single timestamp merely indicates the
vehicle’s presence at a specific moment in time but does not
demonstrate that the vehicle was parked for a "period," as
defined by law.
• PoFA explicitly requires the notice to specify "the vehicle,
the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of
parking to which the notice relates." Without a defined period,
the notices fail to establish any alleged
contravention.[/indent]
Relevance of "Unauthorised Parking"
[indent]• Even in cases of "unauthorised parking," PoFA mandates
that the notice must "specify the period of parking." The term
"parking" inherently implies a duration of time during which the
vehicle was stationary. A single timestamp, such as 0948, does
not substantiate the alleged contravention or demonstrate that
the vehicle was parked without authorisation for any specific
period.
• Without specifying a period of parking, it is impossible to
determine whether the alleged breach occurred or whether the
vehicle was legitimately stationary for a reasonable duration,
such as to read unclear signage.
Non-Compliance Undermines Keeper Liability
As liability under PoFA depends on strict compliance with its
requirements, the failure to specify a period of parking in both
the NtD and NtK means that your client cannot transfer liability
to the registered keeper. Any further attempts to pursue the
alleged debt against me as the Keeper are baseless and
constitute unreasonable behaviour.[/indent]
5. Misapplication of the Beavis Case
It is astonishing that your client and yourselves, their
bulk-litigation representative, continue to refer to ParkingEye
Ltd v Beavis [2015] as though it is some kind of universal
panacea that legitimises all parking charge notices (PCNs),
regardless of the specific facts of the case or the legal
framework. This misuse of the Beavis precedent demonstrates an
embarrassing lack of understanding of its scope and
applicability.
Fundamental Differences Between This Case and Beavis
The circumstances of Beavis involved a free retail car park with
clear and prominent signage, where the charge was deemed
commercially justified as a deterrent to overstaying. Key
factors considered by the Supreme Court included:
[indent]• The clear and prominent nature of the signage.
• The legitimate interest of the landowner in managing parking
for commercial benefit.
• The absence of terms or charges that were disproportionate or
extravagant.[/indent]
In stark contrast:
[indent]1. The alleged contravention in this case involves
"unauthorised parking," not overstaying in a free car park. The
Beavis principles do not automatically apply.
2. The signage relied upon by your client has not been
demonstrated to meet the same standard of clarity and prominence
as in Beavis.
3. Your client seeks to impose an additional £60 "debt recovery"
charge that was not mentioned in Beavis and appears to be an
arbitrary penalty, inconsistent with the Consumer Rights Act
2015.[/indent]
Irrelevance of Beavis to This Matter
Your attempt to rely on Beavis without addressing these
fundamental differences only serves to undermine your position
and highlights the flawed nature of your claim. To treat Beavis
as a one-size-fits-all justification for PCNs shows an alarming
disregard for the nuances of contract law and the specific
circumstances required for the Beavis principles to apply.
Conclusion on Misapplication
The reference to Beavis in this case does not strengthen your
client’s claim—it weakens it by drawing attention to the
significant deficiencies in their approach. Should this matter
proceed to court, I will not hesitate to bring your client’s
misuse of Beavis to the court's attention as evidence of poor
litigation practice and a lack of legal understanding.
6. Data Protection and Address for Service
You have failed to confirm that any outdated address has been
erased from your records in compliance with data protection
obligations. I repeat my request for confirmation that my
current address for service is the only one held on file.
Conclusion
Your response has failed to justify the alleged debt or
meaningfully address the serious concerns I raised, particularly
regarding the lack of compliance with PoFA, the absence of a
contractual basis for additional charges, and the misapplication
of legal precedent. I maintain that the alleged debt is
disputed, and should you proceed with legal action, I will
robustly defend the claim, highlighting your client’s
unreasonable and potentially unlawful conduct.
I remind you of your obligations under the Overriding Objective
and the Pre-Action Protocols to avoid unnecessary court
proceedings. Should you continue to provide inadequate responses
or pursue this baseless claim, I will ensure that your client’s
conduct and misuse of legal processes are brought to the court’s
attention.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name][/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page