DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121446--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 11, 2026, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My guess is that the revised defence has to be submitted by 24
June, 28 days after the court order dated 27 May. But that’s
only a guess. Per Reply #53 which has some of the necessary
details made vague.
#Post#: 121448--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 11, 2026, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> 10. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of POFA, the Claimant has the
right to recover the Charge from the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of
POFA clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to
> be the 'Keeper' unless proven otherwise.
--- End Quote ---
needs to be challenged - what “Paragraph 1 of POFA” and where
does it say this?
Is this just a typical untrue statement stated as fact, which is
common practice, in the hope that nobody notices it’s complete
rubbish? But did they mean to say ‘driver’, which they didn’t?
Of course the “registered keeper” can be presumed to be the
“keeper”! It’s total rubbish which needs to be pointed out as
such.
--- Quote ---
> SCHEDULE 4
> Recovery of unpaid parking charges
>
> Introductory
>
> 1(1)This Schedule applies where—
>
> (a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant
obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of
the vehicle on relevant land; and
>
> (b)those charges have not been paid in full.
>
> (2)It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether
or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain
parked) on the land.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle
>
> 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
>
> (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so
far as applicable) are met; and
>
> (b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of
the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges
relate.
>
> (3)For the purposes of the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(b),
the vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the
material time, unless the contrary is proved.
>
> (4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after
the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which
the notice to keeper is given.
>
> (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by
virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount
specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d)
or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the
unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so
specified).
>
> (6)Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the
creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other
person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not
to be read as permitting double recovery).
>
> (7)The right under this paragraph is subject to paragraph 13
(which provides for the right not to apply in certain
circumstances in the case of a hire vehicle).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 121452--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 11, 2026, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure there's a section in PoFA which sets out 'meanings'
under the Act.
I think the Claimant means that the word 'keeper', when used in
text of the PoFA legislation, means the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle in question.
#Post#: 121453--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 11, 2026, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP should also examine the wording of the PoFA explanatory
notes.
In particular Note 221 which specifies the following;
221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to
recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant
vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12
are satisfied.
The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges
through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means
but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure
double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor
will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the
driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the
driver’s identity.
The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle
keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen
before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain
circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle
(paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the
keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3
#Post#: 121522--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: June 11, 2026, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does this link work?
HTML https://ibb.co/ch0mjgSG
I have until 25th June I think.
#Post#: 121534--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 11, 2026, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I'm sure there's a section in PoFA which sets out 'meanings'
under the Act.
--- End Quote ---
There is, paragraph 2.
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I think the Claimant means that the word 'keeper', when used
in text of the PoFA legislation, means the Registered Keeper of
the vehicle in question.
--- End Quote ---
Yep:
[indent]“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at
the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a
registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, to be the registered keeper;[/indent]
#Post#: 121538--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 1:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jengie link ---
>
>
> Does this link work?
>
>
HTML https://ibb.co/ch0mjgSG
>
> I have until 25th June I think.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, that's fine - it looks pretty compliant.
Can you confirm that you have used this branch of KK Donuts
before?
#Post#: 121541--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: Jengie
Date: June 12, 2026, 2:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
yes i have and I knew it was open late but didn't check the
actual time that evening. Their argument is that I cannot be a
customer when the store was closed.
However, I entered as a customer, was just unable to buy
anything
#Post#: 121545--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 12, 2026, 2:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jengie link ---
>
> yes i have and I knew it was open late but didn't check the
actual time that evening. Their argument is that I cannot be a
customer when the store was closed.
> However, I entered as a customer, was just unable to buy
anything
>
--- End Quote ---
That's good news.
The notice says "Customers Only"
You are a regular customer and therefore appear to satisfy the
requirements of the term.
They will argue differently by you are protected by the concept
of contra-proferentem - meaning that, as a consumer, you are
entitled to interpret the term in a manner which benefits you so
long as that interpretation is reasonable based on the wording
used.
I asked you if you were a customer of KK and you answered "Yes"
- that is a reasonable interpretation.
I have read their more detailed PoC - what a mess they have
made.
This just goes to show how useless these legal firms are when
they are forced to ski off-piste - meaning, that at soon as they
can no longer use their boiler-plate PoC, they simply don't have
the required skills or attention span to deal with the claim.
I think we can use this to our advantage but we need to play a
tactical game.
They have said that they are pursuing you as keeper - but you
aren't the keeper.
We'll need to come up with a defence which doesn't tip them off
as to their numerous errors.
Then, at a later stage, we can submit our Witness Statement at
the last possible moment (hopefully after we have seen their WS)
- in our WS we can then make it clear that you are not the
keeper.
Maybe others could comment on this approach?
Does all this make sense?
#Post#: 121548--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking fine Krispy Kreme Donuts New Malden - parked
within time limit but they say driver was not a customer
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 12, 2026, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The notice says "Customers Only"
>
> You are a regular customer and therefore appear to satisfy the
requirements of the term.
--- End Quote ---
How well that approach goes down may depend on "judge bingo".
Some judges may think a defendant is "taking the p*ss" somewhat
by seeking to argue that a reasonable interpretation of the
signage is that someone who has previously been (or is a
regular) customer is entitled to use their land for free parking
even when not actively being a customer at the time (e.g. When
the store is closed). Others may go for it.
Another angle here may be that the signage makes no valid
contractual offer to non-customers. It prohibits non-customers
from parking rather than offering them parking on certain terms
in the way it does to customers.
It might be difficult to run both of these arguments in tandem,
as one involves making the argument that the driver was a
customer despite the store being closed, whilst the other
involves arguing the driver was not a customer.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page