DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39629--------------------------------------------------
UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: October 7, 2024, 2:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I was wondering if anyone can help me with this. We had an
emergency appointment at the maternity suite here whilst my wife
was heavily pregnant. I quickly parked up and went inside only
to come and find a yellow parking fine sticker with a note
inside saying you will get a fine through the post.
The way the carpark is shaped if you don’t go inside and turn
left into the car park you will not see payment meter and that’s
what I did, I went and turned right and never saw that I had to
pay.
HTML https://ibb.co/dQ35Hc7
#Post#: 39675--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: October 7, 2024, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not a "fine" in any way, shape or form. Please show us the
"yellow parking fine sticker" that you say was affixed to the
vehicle.
If the "yellow parking fine sticker" can be considered as a
Notice to Driver (NtD) then they have failed to fully comply
with all the requirements of PoFA and so the Keeper cannot be
liable for the charge, as long as the drivers identity is not
revealed, inadvertently or otherwise.
Incredibly easy to beat but you should first complain to the
hospital PALS service and ask them to get the PCN cancelled. Do
not be fobbed off by PALS and remind them of their obligations
under the NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS
foundation trusts.
#Post#: 39984--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: October 9, 2024, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply.
This is a picture of the pcn left on my windscreen:
HTML https://ibb.co/ynPwxbc
#Post#: 40007--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is an article I'm writing for a website I own which shows
why this PCN cannot hold the Keeper liable:
--- Quote ---
> Why the Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable for the Parking Charge
Notice
>
> When dealing with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by a
private parking company (PPC), it's crucial to understand the
legal framework that governs liability. In England and Wales,
this is largely dictated by the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012, specifically Schedule 4, which sets out the
conditions under which a parking operator can hold a vehicle’s
keeper liable for unpaid parking charges. In this article, we
will explain why, in some cases, a keeper cannot be held liable
for a PCN, using a recent scenario as an example.
>
> Understanding the Key Legal Concepts: NtD and NtK
>
> The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 establishes two main types
of notices that can be issued in relation to parking charges:
>
> [indent]1. Notice to Driver (NtD): This is a physical notice
that is usually attached to the vehicle at the time of the
parking incident. It notifies the driver of the alleged parking
contravention and initiates the process for pursuing a parking
charge.[/indent]
>
> [indent]2. Notice to Keeper (NtK): This is a notice sent to
the registered keeper of the vehicle, usually by post, if the
parking charge remains unpaid. The NtK can be issued in two
scenarios: when no NtD was issued, or when an NtD was issued but
the charge remains unpaid.[/indent]
>
> To hold the vehicle's keeper liable for a parking charge, the
PPC must follow strict procedural requirements outlined in
Schedule 4 of PoFA.
>
> The Requirements of PoFA for Holding the Keeper Liable
>
> To lawfully transfer liability for a parking charge to the
registered keeper, PoFA sets out a number of conditions that
must be met. Two of these requirements are particularly
important in cases where an NtD was issued:
>
> [indent]• Paragraph 7 of PoFA: This paragraph details the
requirements for an NtD. For the notice to comply fully with
PoFA, it must contain certain prescribed information, such as
the reason for the parking charge, the time and date of the
alleged contravention, and the amount due. It should also
include instructions on how the driver can appeal the
charge.[/indent]
>
> [indent]• Paragraph 8 of PoFA: If an NtD was issued, paragraph
8 outlines the rules for issuing an NtK. It states that the NtK
cannot be sent before 28 days have passed since the NtD was
issued. This waiting period allows the driver time to respond to
the NtD before the keeper is pursued for the charge. If the NtK
is issued before this 28-day period, the PPC fails to meet the
requirements set out by PoFA, and therefore, the keeper cannot
be held liable.[/indent]
>
> Applying This to a Real-World Example
>
> Let’s consider a situation in which a vehicle received a
"Parking Charge Notice" attached to its windscreen, followed by
an NtK sent only two days later. Here's why this scenario fails
to comply with PoFA and why the registered keeper cannot be held
liable:
>
> [indent]1. The NtD was left on the windscreen: The notice
placed on the vehicle constitutes a Notice to Driver (NtD) for
the purposes of PoFA. Even if it does not fully comply with all
the requirements set out in paragraph 7 (for example, if it does
not contain all the necessary information), it still triggers
the rules governing the subsequent issuance of an NtK. The mere
fact that a physical notice was placed on the vehicle is
sufficient to be considered an NtD under PoFA.[/indent]
>
> [indent]2. Premature issuance of the NtK: Under paragraph 8 of
PoFA, once an NtD has been issued, the PPC must wait at least 28
days before issuing a Notice to Keeper. This is to give the
driver a fair opportunity to respond to the NtD. In this
example, the NtK was sent just two days after the NtD was
issued, which is a clear violation of the statutory
requirements.[/indent]
>
> [indent]3. Consequences of failing to comply with PoFA:
Because the PPC did not follow the legally mandated process,
they have failed to comply with PoFA’s conditions for
transferring liability to the keeper. As a result, they cannot
lawfully hold the registered keeper liable for the parking
charge. The PPC may still attempt to pursue the driver for the
charge, but they would need to prove the identity of the driver
at the time of the alleged contravention, which is impossible
unless the keeper admits to being the driver too.[/indent]
>
> Why This Matters
>
> Adhering to the procedural requirements of PoFA is crucial for
PPCs seeking to enforce parking charges against vehicle keepers.
The Act’s provisions are in place to protect motorists from
unfair practices by ensuring that notices are issued correctly
and that there is sufficient opportunity to respond before
liability is transferred. When these requirements are not met,
the parking operator loses the legal basis for holding the
registered keeper liable.
>
> In the example provided, the premature issuance of the NtK
represents a breach of the rules set out in paragraph 8 of PoFA.
Despite any claims the PPC may make about the sufficiency of the
NtD, the fact remains that issuing an NtK only two days after
the NtD violates the statutory requirements. This breach
undermines the parking operator’s ability to transfer liability
to the registered keeper, making any demands for payment
unenforceable against the keeper under PoFA.
>
> Conclusion
>
> In summary, when a parking operator fails to comply with the
procedural requirements of PoFA—such as issuing an NtK too early
after an NtD—the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the
parking charge. The key takeaway is that PPCs must follow the
law to the letter when it comes to parking enforcement. If they
fail to do so, the registered keeper has strong grounds to
contest any attempts to impose liability.
>
> For anyone dealing with a parking charge notice, understanding
PoFA’s requirements can be the difference between having to pay
a charge and successfully challenging it. In cases like this,
the keeper should not hesitate to dispute the PCN, citing the
parking operator’s failure to comply with the law.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 40009--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, in this case, the initial appeal to UKPC, assuming PALS
doesn't get the PCN cancelled is an easy one to defeat... as
long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is
no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 41359--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: October 18, 2024, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, in this case, the initial appeal to UKPC, assuming PALS
doesn't get the PCN cancelled is an easy one to defeat... as
long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is
no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [quote]I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your
'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement
and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to
your client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I guess i will have to appeal directly to the PCN, got a
response back from PALS saying:
Thank you for taking the time to feedback about your recent
visit to the Burnley General Hospital. I can provide you with a
response to your complaint.
You are correct in saying that Car parking at the hospital is
managed by a third-party UK Parking Control. The Trust does not
have any details of any penalty charging notices (PCN) issued as
these are issued only to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The PCN notice will provide you with details of how to appeal
and the timescales. You haven’t confirmed whether you have
appealed or not, but I will suggest that you follow the appeal
process explaining your mitigations if you haven’t already done
that.
If After your appeal and considering their response, you remain
dissatisfied and wish to discuss the matter further, please feel
free to make contact.
#Post#: 41370--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: October 18, 2024, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A fob off. Escalate your complaint to the NHS Trust CEO. Get
back in touch with PALS and remind whichever moron sent you that
response that there has been no "PENALTY" Charge Notice issued
because an unregulated private parking company of ex-clamper
thugs is not and could never be an "authority" that could issue
a "penalty" of any kind. Also remind them that no "offence" has
been committed. A "PARKING" Charge Notice is simply a
speculative invoice form an alleged breach of contract by the
driver of the vehicle and their use of the word "penalty" in
their correspondence shows a level of ignorance that is
embarrassing and will be reported.
Also point them to the Department of Health and Social Care
guidance: NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS
foundation trusts
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles#:~:text=Parking%20will%20be%20provided%20free,a%20period%20of%2030%20days.,<br
/>specifically the bit about "Contracted out parking".
Tell them that you are escalating this to the East Lancashire
Hospital Trusts CEO, Martin Hodgson.
You need to immediately send a complaint to the CEO at
martin.hodgson@elht.nhs.uk
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Urgent Complaint Regarding Unjust Parking Charge
Notice and PALS Response at Burnley Hospital
>
> Dear Mr. Hodgson,
>
> I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my
issue by the PALS department and the unfair Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), which operates
on behalf of Burnley General Hospital.
>
> During a recent emergency visit to the maternity suite, while
my wife was heavily pregnant, I parked quickly to get her the
urgent care she needed. Upon returning to my vehicle, I found an
irregular notice left on the windscreen, stating that a PCN
would be sent to the registered keeper by post. That PCN has now
been received, but I must highlight a serious issue.
>
> UKPC’s issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) has failed to
comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The notice
left on my windscreen, regardless of whether it was classed as a
proper Notice to Driver (NtD), is effectively an NtD under PoFA.
As such, UKPC should not have requested the keeper’s details
from the DVLA until 28 days after the issue of the NtD. By
requesting these details prematurely, UKPC has breached both the
British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and PoFA.
>
> This is a serious violation, and it demonstrates that UKPC is
operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice,
effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s
premises.
>
> I would also like to draw your attention to the NHS Car
Parking Guidance 2022, which makes it clear that:
>
> [indent]• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions
of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."
>
> • "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in
line with the relevant codes of practice."
>
> • "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises
additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge
notices only’."[/indent]
>
> UKPC’s conduct in this case is unacceptable and in clear
violation of both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. It is your
responsibility, as the Trust, to hold them accountable and
ensure that your contractors are operating within the law.
>
> I demand that this PCN be cancelled immediately, and that
UKPC’s practices on your hospital grounds be reviewed to ensure
compliance with both the law and NHS guidelines. I also expect a
formal response regarding how you will address the breaches I
have outlined. Furthermore, the PALS department should be better
equipped to provide real support rather than simply redirecting
patients to appeal directly with rogue contractors like UKPC.
>
> I look forward to your prompt response.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Your Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 41472--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: October 19, 2024, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> A fob off. Escalate your complaint to the NHS Trust CEO. Get
back in touch with PALS and remind whichever moron sent you that
response that there has been no "PENALTY" Charge Notice issued
because an unregulated private parking company of ex-clamper
thugs is not and could never be an "authority" that could issue
a "penalty" of any kind. Also remind them that no "offence" has
been committed. A "PARKING" Charge Notice is simply a
speculative invoice form an alleged breach of contract by the
driver of the vehicle and their use of the word "penalty" in
their correspondence shows a level of ignorance that is
embarrassing and will be reported.
>
> Also point them to the Department of Health and Social Care
guidance: NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS
foundation trusts
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles#:~:text=Parking%20will%20be%20provided%20free,a%20period%20of%2030%20days.,<br
/>specifically the bit about "Contracted out parking".
>
> Tell them that you are escalating this to the East Lancashire
Hospital Trusts CEO, Martin Hodgson.
>
> You need to immediately send a complaint to the CEO at
martin.hodgson@elht.nhs.uk
>
> [quote]Subject: Urgent Complaint Regarding Unjust Parking
Charge Notice and PALS Response at Burnley Hospital
>
> Dear Mr. Hodgson,
>
> I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my
issue by the PALS department and the unfair Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Control (UKPC), which operates
on behalf of Burnley General Hospital.
>
> During a recent emergency visit to the maternity suite, while
my wife was heavily pregnant, I parked quickly to get her the
urgent care she needed. Upon returning to my vehicle, I found an
irregular notice left on the windscreen, stating that a PCN
would be sent to the registered keeper by post. That PCN has now
been received, but I must highlight a serious issue.
>
> UKPC’s issuance of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) has failed to
comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The notice
left on my windscreen, regardless of whether it was classed as a
proper Notice to Driver (NtD), is effectively an NtD under PoFA.
As such, UKPC should not have requested the keeper’s details
from the DVLA until 28 days after the issue of the NtD. By
requesting these details prematurely, UKPC has breached both the
British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and PoFA.
>
> This is a serious violation, and it demonstrates that UKPC is
operating outside the requirements of its own Code of Practice,
effectively making them a "rogue contractor" on your hospital’s
premises.
>
> I would also like to draw your attention to the NHS Car
Parking Guidance 2022, which makes it clear that:
>
> [indent]• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions
of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."
>
> • "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in
line with the relevant codes of practice."
>
> • "Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises
additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge
notices only’."[/indent]
>
> UKPC’s conduct in this case is unacceptable and in clear
violation of both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. It is your
responsibility, as the Trust, to hold them accountable and
ensure that your contractors are operating within the law.
>
> I demand that this PCN be cancelled immediately, and that
UKPC’s practices on your hospital grounds be reviewed to ensure
compliance with both the law and NHS guidelines. I also expect a
formal response regarding how you will address the breaches I
have outlined. Furthermore, the PALS department should be better
equipped to provide real support rather than simply redirecting
patients to appeal directly with rogue contractors like UKPC.
>
> I look forward to your prompt response.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Your Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Brilliant, thank you very much for your help. I have emailed the
relevant parties. Will keep you updated. In the mean time i have
already appealed the 'PCN' due to the timing constraints.
#Post#: 41477--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: b789
Date: October 19, 2024, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You had until Tuesday 22nd October to submit an appeal. That's
three days away.
#Post#: 41523--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPC PARKING CHARGE - BURNLEY BIRTH CENTRE BURNLEY HOSPITAL
DIR By: nothavingthis
Date: October 19, 2024, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You had until Tuesday 22nd October to submit an appeal. That's
three days away.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah, true, but i didnt want to leave it last minute incase i
got busy and didnt get round to appealing it. On the other hand,
the initial complaint to PALS took 3+ days too, even then i had
to chase up daily for an update/response.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page