DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42521--------------------------------------------------
I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking Without
The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: Empty123
Date: October 26, 2024, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver pulled up to drop passengers off outside McDonalds
Springfield Retail Park, Stoke-On-Trent, ST4 6PD.
Between entering the road and leaving there is a period of 44
seconds (stopped for 25 seconds for passengers to exit the car).
Surely this has sufficient grounds for appeal given that there
is no appropriate grace period given to read signs and assess
terms and conditions as well as no clear and obvious signage
whereby stopping would be prohibited.
Pictures are timestamped and show the car not even stopped
inside the yellow junction (just turning) and where the car is
actually stopped there is no visible lines.
Could assistance please be given to appeal this.
Thanks in advance
PCN -
HTML https://imgur.com/a/aaYpkWm
Evidence -
HTML https://imgur.com/a/bsDbKGg
#Post#: 42540--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: roythebus
Date: October 26, 2024, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to scan both sides of the PCN so we can clearly see the
wording. See the "read this first" at the start of the age.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 42551--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: Empty123
Date: October 26, 2024, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies, thought I'd posted it.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/QMyGcns
#Post#: 42875--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: b789
Date: October 29, 2024, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is attempting to hold the registered
keeper liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to a brief
stop at Springfields Retail Park. Given that the vehicle was
stopped for a very short period (44 seconds total, with 25
seconds for passengers to exit), there are several strong points
for appeal based on the circumstances you’ve described:
Consideration Period: As per section 13 of the BPA Code of
Practice, a driver must be given adequate time to read and
understand the signage before deciding whether to stay or leave.
Stopping for 44 seconds to drop off passengers does not
constitute parking and should fall under a consideration period.
Additionally, 25 seconds is insufficient time to reasonably
assess any parking terms and conditions.
Inadequate Signage: The car was stopped where no visible lines
or clear signage prohibited stopping. The new Single Code of
Practice (SCoP) requires that signs be clear, unambiguous, and
prominently displayed. If signage was not obvious, or if it was
difficult to read from the vehicle, this further undermines the
enforceability of the PCN.
No Stopping for Drop-offs: Dropping off passengers does not
equate to parking, and if there is no clearly marked restriction
on stopping, this should not be considered a breach of terms.
The evidence showing that the car was only briefly turning and
stopping outside of marked areas supports this argument.
Jopson v Homeguard [2016]: The case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016]
B9GF0A9E provides a clear distinction between parking and
temporarily stopping to load or unload passengers or goods. In
this instance, the driver stopped for the sole purpose of
unloading passengers, which is explicitly not considered parking
according to this legal precedent. Issuing a PCN in such a
situation is therefore inappropriate and unjustified.
Lack of Notice for 'No Stopping': If there are areas where
stopping is prohibited, this should be explicitly mentioned on
the signage. If no such notice exists, the claim that stopping
briefly for a drop-off is a contravention is weak.
Suggested Grounds for Appeal:
Appealing as the Keeper: It should be highlighted that this is
an appeal made solely by the registered keeper.
Consideration Period: Refer to the Single Code of Practice,
section 5, regarding consideration and grace periods, and argue
that the driver was not afforded adequate time to consider the
terms and conditions of the car park before leaving.
Lack of Adequate Signage: Emphasise the failure of the operator
to provide clear and visible signage, especially concerning any
'no stopping' or 'no waiting' restrictions in the area.
No Evidence of Parking: Challenge the assertion that 44 seconds
equates to parking, as the vehicle was merely stopped
momentarily to drop off passengers, which does not constitute
parking.
Draft your appeal focusing on these key points.
Include any evidence (e.g., the timestamped images) showing the
vehicle was not parked and that the signage was unclear or
inadequate. Request that the operator cancel the charge or
provide a detailed explanation of how the alleged contravention
occurred within such a brief time.
Show us what you intend to send as your appeal. It is going to
be rejected anyway but you have to go through the motions.
#Post#: 83363--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: Empty123
Date: July 29, 2025, 2:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've ignored the letter of claim and have received a court claim
form. How should I proceed and what should I fill for my
defence?
#Post#: 83377--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: Empty123
Date: July 29, 2025, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/wjbsC50
#Post#: 83418--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: b789
Date: July 30, 2025, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you make any appeal to the PCN?
With an issue date of 23rd July you have until 4pm on Monday
11th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the
instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant
> asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
> debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately
> disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim
> (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
> against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately
comply
> with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the
> PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause
> (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
> contracts) which is/are relied on;
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
> why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the
contract
> (or contracts);
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
> where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
> occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was
parked
> before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
> calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
> damages, or other charges;
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
> parking charge and what proportion is damages;
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
> sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the
claimant
> cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
There
> is no legal obligation on a keeper to identify the driver. The
> burden of proof remains with the Claimant to prove driver
> identity. The Defendant relies on VCS v Edward (2023)
H0KF6C9C,
> where HHJ Gargan held that no adverse inference may be drawn
> from a keeper declining to name the driver.
>
> 5. The Defendant further submits that the Notice to Keeper
> is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
> (PoFA), paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the required
> "period of parking". The Notice to Keeper (NtK) merely states
a
> single timestamp, which does not satisfy the statutory
> requirement. This defect renders the NtK incapable of creating
> keeper liability. The Defendant relies on the persuasive
appeal
> judgment in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023)
> [H6DP632H], where HHJ Mitchell held that failure to specify a
> period of parking invalidated keeper liability.
>
> 6. The Defendant asserts that the driver did not park but
> merely stopped briefly to drop off a passenger. This does not
> constitute "parking" in law. The Defendant relies on the
> persuasive County Court appeal decision in Jopson v Homeguard
> Services Ltd (2016) [B9GF0A9E], where HHJ Harris QC clarified
> that temporary stopping for unloading or passenger drop-off is
> not parking and does not engage any contractual liability.
>
> 7. The Defendant further submits that the driver was not
> afforded the minimum consideration period required to
> seek out, read, and agree to any terms. The Claimant's own
> Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (PPSCoP, Annex
B,
> Table B1) mandates a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes
> before any contract can be formed. The Claimant has failed to
> evidence that this requirement was met.
>
> 8. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out
> similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately
> comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
> Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
> explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
>
> 9. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found
> that requiring further case management steps would be
> disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
> Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
> submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and
invites
> the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the
claim
> due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
> CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
> proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
> of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
> do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
> (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
> (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
> is (or are) relied on; and
> (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
> the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
> contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it
> served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have
> done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
> court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
> the overriding objective to allot to this case any further
share
> of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
> claim and a further defence, each followed by further
referrals
> to the judge for case management.
>
> ORDER:
> 1. The claim is struck out.
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
> stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed
at
> this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
> failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83513--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: Empty123
Date: July 30, 2025, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your help. Just to
note I no longer own this car and it was sold. Does it make any
difference to proceedings and do I need to alter any of the
wording in your defence reply? Thanks!
#Post#: 83514--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: Empty123
Date: July 30, 2025, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And yes I appealed. Using most of what you replied originally.
#Post#: 83563--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services PCN - Springfield Retail Park. (Parking
Without The Authority Of The Landlord)
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2025, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The fact that you no longer own the vehicle is irrelevant. It is
all about the facts at the time of the alleged contravention.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page