DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52022--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are none provided
#Post#: 52024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 5, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Top left of each photo of the vehicle. First one appears to say
10:42.
I'm on the fence about the suggested approach. I'm half minded
to suggest getting 2 appeals in so that you can definitely get
them cancelled at POPLA if CUP decide to be daft. But I do agree
that issuing 2 notices for 1 continuous contravention should be
complained about.
#Post#: 52028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: 666
Date: January 5, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered
(therefore 'given') two working days after posting
>
--- End Quote ---
That presumption comes from the Interpretation Act, and applies
"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served
by post".
I doubt whether CUP's threatening letter falls within that
definition.
#Post#: 52029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So there is, apologies. I'll check them when I get home!
#Post#: 52032--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 5, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 666 link ---
>
> [quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=4521.msg51978#msg51978
date=1736081510]
> Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered
(therefore 'given') two working days after posting
>
--- End Quote ---
That presumption comes from the Interpretation Act, and applies
"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served
by post".
[/quote]
In this case, the presumption actually comes from paragraph 9(6)
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act:
[indent]A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for
the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day
after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose
“working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales.[/indent]
Upon inspection, it actually just says "post", rather than
necessarily first class.
The requirements of PoFA are the ones against which we should be
comparing any dates when assessing whether the notice is
compliant such that the charges may be recovered from the keeper
(which in this case, they may not).
#Post#: 52036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: 666
Date: January 5, 2025, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=666 link=topic=4521.msg52028#msg52028
date=1736098356]
> [quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=4521.msg51978#msg51978
date=1736081510]
> Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered
(therefore 'given') two working days after posting
>
--- End Quote ---
That presumption comes from the Interpretation Act, and applies
"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served
by post".
[/quote]
In this case, the presumption actually comes from paragraph 9(6)
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act:
[indent]A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for
the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day
after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose
“working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales.[/indent]
Upon inspection, it actually just says "post", rather than
necessarily first class.
The requirements of PoFA are the ones against which we should be
comparing any dates when assessing whether the notice is
compliant such that the charges may be recovered from the keeper
(which in this case, they may not).
[/quote]
Thank you or that.
The IA also just says "post", and rather than two days "the time
at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of
post". I guess the two days comes from case law?
#Post#: 52037--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 5, 2025, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN 1 has two photos timestamped at 10:41:38 and 10:42:01
PCN 2 has two photos timestamped at 10:42:29 and 10:42:58
#Post#: 52093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 6, 2025, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all for your help. Which of the two options do we think
is best for me to take?
#Post#: 52095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 6, 2025, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think if I were the recipient of these charges, I'd take an
approach along the lines of the one suggested by b789. Issuing 2
charges for a continuous parking event (that doesn't span over
more than 1 day) is ridiculous, and a complaint will provide the
opportunity to highlight this to the BPA, if required.
The reason I was originally on the fence is the key risk I can
see with that approach is the possibility that CUP may decline
to treat the complaint as an appeal against the 2 charges
(despite the SCOP saying they must) meaning you don't get the
opportunity to go to POPLA, where you would almost certainly
succeed. If you were simply looking for an easy life, getting
POPLA codes might be one way to do that.
That said, once a human being at CUP eventually looks at the
case they will hopefully see they'd have absolutely no hope in
hell of trying to successfully litigate, and that the BPA would
hopefully take a dim view of an operator issuing 2 charges for 1
continuous alleged contravention of short duration.
#Post#: 52142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Two C.U.P enforcement PCNs - parked on or within a no
parking area - Watford
DIR By: dmarsh91
Date: January 6, 2025, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great, thank you.
This is probably a naive question, but would there be any
benefit in pursuing both options, or would these likely
contradict each other?
Am I correct in thinking I can not get the POPLA codes without
submitting an appeal?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page