DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51914--------------------------------------------------
Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no parking
area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 4, 2025, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Two PCNs were sent to the registered keeper for this offence.
There are no timestamps on either but the driver of the vehicle
was only parked here for a maximum of 15 minutes while the
passenger attended to something urgently a 2 minute walk away.
I'm a complete novice when it comes to things like this, so
apologies in advance, but it doesn't seem right that two PCNs
have been issued.
I would love some guidance on what steps are appropriate to take
next. Many thanks!
HTML https://i.imgur.com/V18pokN.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/cCF3wPk.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/rmLU0d6.jpeg
#Post#: 51952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: January 5, 2025, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are the PCN reference number the same or different? Either way,
you can tell them to reference the answer given in the case of
Arkell v Pressdram (1971)
HTML https://proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/arkell-v-pressdram-1971/.
Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant and as long
as the drivers identity is not revealed to them, there is
absolutely nothing they can do about these PCNs.
PoFA requires that the NtK must be "given" to the Keeper within
the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which
the specified period of parking ended. As the alleged
contravention occurred on Saturday 21st December 2024 and the
PCN was "issued" on Thursday 2nd January, it cannot have been
"given" before Monday 6th January (tomorrow).
In order to have complied with PoFA, the NtK must have been
"given" no later than Saturday 4th January. As it is not PoFA
compliant, there is no Keeper liability.
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.
Appeal with the following, which will be rejected by CUP but
must be upheld by POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your
alleged ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual
agreement, and I will be making a complaint about your predatory
and incompetent conduct to your client landowner.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all the
mandatory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It would appear that CUP
Enforcement has failed to grasp that PoFA compliance is not a
"close enough" exercise. Partial or even substantial compliance
does not suffice.
>
> The timeline is simple and damning:
>
> Date of alleged contravention: Saturday, 21st December 2024
> Date of NtK issue: Thursday, 2nd January 2025
> First date of presumed delivery: Monday, 6th January 2025
>
> For your NtK to be PoFA-compliant, it should have been issued
by Wednesday, 1st January 2025, at the latest. Clearly, it was
not.
>
> I remind you that liability under PoFA is strictly limited to
the driver unless the NtK is served within the relevant period
and in full compliance with the statutory provisions. As your
NtK fails this threshold, you are unable to hold me, the
registered keeper, liable.
>
> CUP Enforcement seems to be relying on some creative but
misguided legal theories about presumed driver liability or the
law of agency. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to
identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
There will be no admission as to who was driving. No assumptions
or inferences can be drawn. The registered keeper cannot be
presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under
some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
>
> I note your NtK. I refer you to the answer given in the case
of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)
HTML https://proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/arkell-v-pressdram-1971/.
In
that spirit, I suggest you cancel this PCN and save us both a
complete waste of time. You’ve got no chance at POPLA and you
should try and save yourself the assessor fee.
>
> I look forward to confirmation that this matter is now closed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 51954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 5, 2025, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If suggesting people reference Arkell v Pressdram (1971), please
also suggest they read it first.
#Post#: 51975--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply and template, should be very helpful. Yes,
the two PCNs have different reference numbers.
I'm a little confused about the dates you mention in your reply.
If the PCN was issued on the Thursday 2nd January, why could it
not have been given before Monday 6th January?
#Post#: 51978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 5, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered
(therefore 'given') two working days after posting
#Post#: 51979--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great, many thanks!
#Post#: 51980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Could the multiple bank holidays over the Christmas and new year
period be used against me for reasoning for this?
#Post#: 51997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: b789
Date: January 5, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After some thought about this, I would suggest making a formal
complaint to CUP rather than appealing two separate NtKs. Use
their formal complaints process and sent them the following as a
PDF letter attached to an email addressed to
info@cupenforcement.com and CC in yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Duplicate PCNs for the
Same Alleged Contravention
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I am writing to formally complain about two separate Notice to
Keeper (NtK) letters I have received from CUP Enforcement
regarding the same alleged contravention, purportedly occurring
on 21st December 2024 at 105-115 The Parade, Watford WD17 1LU.
These NtKs, while assigned different PCN numbers [PCN #1 number]
and [PCN #2 number], are otherwise identical and relate to the
same date, time, location, and even feature the same ANPR
photographic evidence.
>
> This duplication is a serious administrative error that raises
concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of your
enforcement processes. Issuing multiple PCNs for a single event
result in unfair and unjustified financial demands against the
registered keeper.
>
> Furthermore, I note that the NtKs claim to have been issued
under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, the dates on the NtKs
invalidate any claim to compliance with PoFA. The alleged
contravention took place on Thursday, 21st December 2024, and
the NtK was issued on Thursday, 2nd January 2025. In order to
comply with PoFA, the NtK must be given within 14 days of the
alleged contravention, meaning the latest date by which it
should have been given was Tuesday, 31st December 2024. Your
failure to meet this statutory deadline means that the keeper
cannot be held liable under PoFA.
>
> I wish to make it clear that I am not submitting a separate
appeal for each PCN at this stage. Instead, I am raising this
issue as a formal complaint under the provisions of the latest
BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP),
Section 11.2, which states:
>
> [indent]"Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it
considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a
parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an
appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause
8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until
it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or
the complainant informs the parking operator that they do not
wish it to be so handled."[/indent]
>
> Given the above, I demand that CUP Enforcement:
>
> [indent]• Cancel both PCNs immediately, as they pertain to the
same alleged contravention.
>
> • Provide a full explanation as to how this duplication error
occurred.
>
> • Confirm in writing that no further action will be taken
against me, the registered keeper, in relation to this alleged
incident.[/indent]
>
> Please treat this complaint as an appeal if necessary, in line
with your obligations under the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> If this matter is not resolved satisfactorily within 14 days,
I will escalate my complaint to the British Parking Association
(BPA) for further investigation. I also reserve the right to
report this matter to the DVLA and the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for potential misuse of my personal
data.
>
> I expect a prompt and detailed response.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 52014--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's great, thanks a lot.
The ANPR photographic evidence, although similar, is not the
same on both notices. Should I use the template but omit that
part of the information?
#Post#: 52019--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 5, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are the timestamps on the photos?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 7
DIR Next Page