DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42129--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: October 24, 2024, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> Received a letter addressed to me in post dated 03.10.2024,
which I opened today, with a charge amount to pay £60 within 14
days, increase to £100 if not paid within 14 days.
>
> When did you receive the PCN?
> The discount is no longer available(14 days beginning on day
after that on which it was presumed served/given - which was 7
Oct. therefore 14 days ended 21st).
> Post doesn't take this long so what's different in this case
e.g. you don't actually live at the address used(the one held by
DVLA) or you've been away and it's been on the mat for a
fortnight etc?
>
> Anyway, the periods start from 7th not when you opened the
PCN.
>
> Putting the PCN to one side for a mo, the driver parked on
private land for their convenience- always risky nowadays.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes i agree the time of 14 days has passed now.
i don't want to miss the 28 days deadline which is 31st of
October.
What are my grounds for appeal, if any.
Thanks
#Post#: 42164--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: b789
Date: October 24, 2024, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The entrance sig and the wording on the signs in the car park is
important so please try ad obtain photos of them please.
Any appeal. for what it's worth, will be on beeches of the
Single Code of Practice (SCoP) and no contract offered. However,
you should be aware that no appeal is going to be successful.
This will only be sorted if/when it goes to the ultimate dispute
resolution service, the county court.
#Post#: 42410--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: October 25, 2024, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The entrance sig and the wording on the signs in the car park
is important so please try ad obtain photos of them please.
>
> Any appeal. for what it's worth, will be on beeches of the
Single Code of Practice (SCoP) and no contract offered. However,
you should be aware that no appeal is going to be successful.
This will only be sorted if/when it goes to the ultimate dispute
resolution service, the county court.
>
--- End Quote ---
Will take pictures over weekend and upload.
Thanks
#Post#: 42426--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: October 26, 2024, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://tinypic.host/images/2024/10/26/ent.jpg
HTML https://tinypic.host/images/2024/10/26/ins.jpg
#Post#: 42437--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: b789
Date: October 26, 2024, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, consider a few things... The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is
simply an invoice for a breach of terms and conditions of a
"contract" between the driver and UKCPS. The "contract" is the
terms and condition signs at the location. The driver doesn't
have to actually read the signs but as long as there enough
signs and they adequately bring to the attention of the driver
the charge for breaching those terms, the "contract" is entered
into by 'conduct'. The 'conduct' being the action of actually
parking there.
Now, here is the problem... If the driver is not a resident of a
property at the location, the capability of the sign to form a
contractual relationship depends on whether the sign makes a
clear and specific offer to non-residents or prohibits their
parking.
In the image you provided, the sign specifically states:
--- Quote ---
> "Parking is only permitted for residents of Mak Court. No
parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of
time."
--- End Quote ---
This wording is important because it suggests the following:
[indent]1. Nature of the Offer
The sign does not extend an offer to non-residents. Instead, it
expressly prohibits parking by non-residents. This means that a
non-resident would not be able to accept the offer because no
offer is made to them in the first place.
In contract law, if there is no offer, there can be no
acceptance, and therefore no contract.
2. Prohibitive Notice
The sign is a prohibitive notice, rather than an invitation to
enter into a contract. Prohibitive notices are used to indicate
that no permission is granted for certain actions (in this case,
parking by non-residents).
In general, courts have found that prohibitive notices are not
capable of forming a contract. For a contract to be formed,
there must be an offer for the individual to accept. If parking
is explicitly prohibited for certain individuals, they cannot be
deemed to have accepted an offer that doesn't exist.
If non-residents park in violation of the prohibition, this
should be a trespass issue, not a contractual issue, which would
require a separate legal basis for claiming damages (typically
limited to actual losses).
3. Case Law Support
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court
made it clear that a sign offering parking on certain terms
could form a contract. However, that was in the context of a
sign offering parking on specific conditions (e.g., time
limits). In contrast, a prohibitive notice does not offer
parking to non-residents; therefore, there can be no contractual
relationship formed with a non-resident.[/indent]
Conclusion:
[indent]• For a resident: The sign could form a contractual
relationship because it offers parking to residents under
certain conditions (e.g., they must park in accordance with the
rules).
• For a non-resident: The sign cannot form a contract because it
explicitly prohibits parking by non-residents. Since no offer is
made to non-residents, there can be no acceptance, and thus no
contract.[/indent]
In this scenario, as a non-resident parked and then received a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the argument is that the sign does
not offer parking to them at all, and thus no contract could
have been formed. Any charge would need to be pursued under
trespass law rather than as a breach of contract.
#Post#: 42556--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: October 26, 2024, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, consider a few things... The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is
simply an invoice for a breach of terms and conditions of a
"contract" between the driver and UKCPS. The "contract" is the
terms and condition signs at the location. The driver doesn't
have to actually read the signs but as long as there enough
signs and they adequately bring to the attention of the driver
the charge for breaching those terms, the "contract" is entered
into by 'conduct'. The 'conduct' being the action of actually
parking there.
>
> Now, here is the problem... If the driver is not a resident of
a property at the location, the capability of the sign to form a
contractual relationship depends on whether the sign makes a
clear and specific offer to non-residents or prohibits their
parking.
>
> In the image you provided, the sign specifically states:
>
> [quote]"Parking is only permitted for residents of Mak Court.
No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of
time."
--- End Quote ---
This wording is important because it suggests the following:
[indent]1. Nature of the Offer
The sign does not extend an offer to non-residents. Instead, it
expressly prohibits parking by non-residents. This means that a
non-resident would not be able to accept the offer because no
offer is made to them in the first place.
In contract law, if there is no offer, there can be no
acceptance, and therefore no contract.
2. Prohibitive Notice
The sign is a prohibitive notice, rather than an invitation to
enter into a contract. Prohibitive notices are used to indicate
that no permission is granted for certain actions (in this case,
parking by non-residents).
In general, courts have found that prohibitive notices are not
capable of forming a contract. For a contract to be formed,
there must be an offer for the individual to accept. If parking
is explicitly prohibited for certain individuals, they cannot be
deemed to have accepted an offer that doesn't exist.
If non-residents park in violation of the prohibition, this
should be a trespass issue, not a contractual issue, which would
require a separate legal basis for claiming damages (typically
limited to actual losses).
3. Case Law Support
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court
made it clear that a sign offering parking on certain terms
could form a contract. However, that was in the context of a
sign offering parking on specific conditions (e.g., time
limits). In contrast, a prohibitive notice does not offer
parking to non-residents; therefore, there can be no contractual
relationship formed with a non-resident.[/indent]
Conclusion:
[indent]• For a resident: The sign could form a contractual
relationship because it offers parking to residents under
certain conditions (e.g., they must park in accordance with the
rules).
• For a non-resident: The sign cannot form a contract because it
explicitly prohibits parking by non-residents. Since no offer is
made to non-residents, there can be no acceptance, and thus no
contract.[/indent]
In this scenario, as a non-resident parked and then received a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the argument is that the sign does
not offer parking to them at all, and thus no contract could
have been formed. Any charge would need to be pursued under
trespass law rather than as a breach of contract.
[/quote]
Thanks b789 for raising a valid argument.
My reply would be no contravention occurred for which a PCN is
issued. The driver did not form any contract to be issued a PCN
for parking.
It's a matter of trespassing rather than a breach of contract.
Is there any old draft similar to this situation which I can use
to reply.
Thanks for your help.
#Post#: 42565--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 26, 2024, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You could use the very detailed reply from b789 to help you
draft something.
#Post#: 42991--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: October 29, 2024, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have replied via appeal portal online as per b789 estlier
post.
Thanks
#Post#: 53341--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: boxer29
Date: January 14, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi b789,
Further to my reply as advised by you on their online portal.
I have received a letter dated 31.12.24 from Trace Debt Recovery
UK Limited
" Your case has been to TRACE Debt Recovery UK Limited because
you have an outstanding matter with our client; UKCPS Limited.
Our client has previously written to you requesting payment for
parking charges relating to the above vehicle, however, to date
the charges have not been settled.
We believe this could just be an oversight on your behalf, but
our client now requires full payment of the balance due within
14 days from the date of this letter. The above balance relates
to the original parking charge and subsequent Debt Recovery
costs which will have been detailed in the car park and/or on
the previous letters our client has sent to you."
Total payment due 170.00
Options
1 pay now
2let us help you
3 Ignore this reminder- result = face the risk of escalation
through our client solicitor, further solicitor charges being
added to your balance and face the risk of escalation through
the courts.
I haven't received any reply from the appeal which I did submit
in time on the appeals online portal.
Can someone please help me to sort this out.
Thanks
#Post#: 53348--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking NTK ( Postal -PoFA) issued on private land
Mak Court WF13 4AF
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 14, 2025, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Debt recovery company = ignore and file or use as cat litter.
They are simply on commission for any money they can extract
from you. They use scary words to intimidate you into paying.
Don’t fall for it.
Only reply to a formal letter from UKCPS themselves, such as a
Letter before Claim. UKCPS probably know you’re a lost cause, so
they have sent the bully boys in to hope that you’ll pay up. If
they pay TRACE 10% they still get £90 or more from you.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page