DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 49900--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: b789
Date: December 15, 2024, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is always worth seeing the POPLA assessors reasoning for
rejecting an appeal. If you could break up the wall of text with
a few paragraph breaks, that would help make it more palatable
to read.
You can no ignore the POPLA decision. It has no bearing on
anything going forwards.
What you are looking out for is a Letter of Claim (LoC). PE will
either issue it themselves or they will use a bulk litigator to
do so on their behalf. Usually it will be DCB Legal. Don't
confuse them with their debt collection arm, DCBL, who can be
safely ignored.
When you receive the LoC, show it to us and we will advise
further. Whilst an LoC does not have to be responded to, it is
always worthwhile doing so, especially as it will give them a
heads up that they are not dealing with low-hanging fruit on the
gullible tree.
What will follow the LoC will be an N1SDT Claim Form from the
CNBC. This cannot be ignored and again, we would need to see all
of the form with only your personal details, the claim numbering
the MCOL password redacted.
#Post#: 49943--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: Rightbak
Date: December 15, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Thanks for your reply. I will await the LoC and advise further.
In the meantime, here is the POPLA response. I have tried to
break it up as best as possible to make it readable...
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator
has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver
has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the
car park. 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 have to follow certain rules
including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable
if the parking operator is not provided with the name and
address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the
necessary information and the parking operator has therefore
successfully transferred the liability onto the registered
keeper. The parking operator has transferred liability to the
registered keeper so they are not holding the driver liable. The
PCN also invites the registered keeper to name the driver to
transfer liability and if no driver details are provided, they
will hold the registered keeper liable for the charge. It also
advised that if no driver is identified they have the right to
recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the keeper. I
am satisfied that it invites the keeper to pay the charge if no
driver is identified.
The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice
which set the standards its parking operators need to comply
with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to
have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the
parking operator’s evidence shows the signs state “…2 hour max
stay between 10am – 11pm…NO PARKING OUTSIDE OF THESE
TIMES…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result
in a Parking Charge of:£100…”. The signs clearly inform
motorists of the terms of parking at the site, and offers a
contract to motorists using the site, if they overstay the
maximum stay time or park at the site when no parking is allowed
the motorists is accepting a PCN will be issued to them. I am
satisfied that the terms and conditions are fair under The
Consumer Right Acts 2015 as the terms are made clear to
motorists and it is the motorist’s choice if they choose to park
there and accept the terms that are on offer.
The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms
and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the
requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read
and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before
accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the
terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before
agreeing to the contract and parking.
Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have
entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto
private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows
there is an entrance sign to inform motorists they are entering
private land and terms and conditions apply. The site map
provided by the parking operator shows there are 6 signs
installed at the site informing motorists of the terms and
conditions of using the site. There is sufficient signage
installed at the site based on the size off it.
While I appreciate there are no images of the appellants vehicle
parked near a sign, there is no requirement for the parking
operator to provide these as their evidence shows signs are
installed throughout the site.
Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking
operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the
signs must give adequate notice of the charge. The signs have
the PCN amount in large white text on a black background, I am
satisfied that the PCN amount is adequately brought to
motorists’ attention.
Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking
operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or
their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in
the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA
Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case the parking
operator has provided as signed contract from March 2021 which
is valid for 36 months. The contract does say it renews
automatically unless either party terminates the contract. I am
satisfied the parking operator has a valid landowner contract.
The parking operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays
on the site for and the time they entered. As the parking
operator has shown that the appellants vehicle entered the site
at 09:12, 48 minutes before parking is allowed at the site, and
left at 10:08 the PCN has been issued by the parking operator
the vehicle was parked at the site for 38 minutes when no
parking was allowed. Whilst I note the appellant has raised
comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the
comments expand on the initial grounds raised and I have
addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not
require any further consideration.
After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellants
vehicle was parked at the site when no parking was allowed
without being authorised to do so and therefore the driver did
not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I
am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I
must refuse the appeal.
#Post#: 49947--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: John Glacier
Date: December 15, 2024, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Typical POPLA nonsense. Wait for the letter before claim.
#Post#: 49961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: b789
Date: December 15, 2024, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Obviously they redacted the contract where it stated that the
contract is automatically renewed but, according to the moronic
POPLA assessor, they let them see it. I would dare them to try
that at court and see how quickly they are slapped down.
The assessor did not mention the PoFA failure. They simply
accepted that the NtK was PoFA compliant..
Just goes to show how useless they really are. Never mind.
Onwards and upwards.
#Post#: 110085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: wap00
Date: February 17, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All
I know this thread is old, but as my case is from the same
location and similar i thought it best to post here rather than
start a new thread?
So my wife went to go to this KFC, but once entered the car park
, realised it was closed, stopped in the car park for 4 minutes
while googling somewhere else, and then left.
Receieved the parking charge notice today.
Thing is, ive checked and the first sign you can see when
entering the car park, is actually IN the car park, so how can
you avoid a fine?!
I have photos and will try to upload them, but ive just checked
google maps street view and can see that the sign has been
damaged and so points in a different direction making it
impossible to see until entering the car park.
this is the link to the steet view which shows the sign as it
should have been, i.e. as it was in Apr 2022. (the 2 hour max
stay sign on the pole just behind the 'kfc enter' sign on the
ground)
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZswLZttuYho3wMXH9
The sign is now approx 90 degrees to the left, so facing away
from this view and in towards the road entrance.
do you think this is reason enough for a fine appeal to be
upheld?
thanks in advance
#Post#: 110087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 17, 2026, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please start a new thread; by all means include a link to the
old thread.
See
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/house-rules/
--- Quote ---
> 1. We operate a "one case, one thread" rule. This means that
you should keep any posts relating to one case (one incident of
speeding, one PCN, etc) to a single thread. Do not start
multiple topics on the same case.
>
> 2. Do not hijack another person's thread in order to post your
own problem. Start your own.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 110088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: wap00
Date: February 17, 2026, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
apologies, thanks, ill start a new one
#Post#: 125483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: Rightbak
Date: July 23, 2026, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately Parkingeye are still chasing the claim as detailed
in this post. I was hopeful that as it went very quiet for 12
months that they had moved on to other targets, but today I
received a "Letter Of Claim" letter from DCB Legal chasing the
£170.
I don't think this is the "Letter BEFORE Claim" I should be
looking out for, but thought I should confirm before binning?
Many thanks
#Post#: 125485--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 23, 2026, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is.
You should reply briefly, according to
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1
--- Quote ---
> the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in
a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very
complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether
the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons
why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of
the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
You don't need to write War and Peace, just set out your
position and if you deny the claim and will defend it, say so.
More importantly will be the N1SDT county court claim which will
follow in due course, which you should post here as advised in
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>when it arrives, IE obscure the password and names but NOT the
dates. The date on this starts the clock ticking on your
subsequent actions so it should not be ignored or delayed.
#Post#: 125487--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN KFC Portsmouth North Harbour
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 23, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A Parking Eye NtK from that far back will not be POFA compliant
- they are just rolling the dice.
They will issue a claim which you will defend and they will
(likely 99%) discontinue.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page