DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 55878--------------------------------------------------
PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: January 30, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The registered keeper is not the driver. Tomorrow is the last
day to pay the reduced rate/appeal at that rate. No actions have
been taken as of yet.
The driver entered the car park at 10:42 and left at 14:23 -
there is a three hour parking limit and so this is a 31 minute
overstay.
The driver was on site using the facilities in the retail park
the entire time - there are shops, activities, and restaurants,
although the driver remained at one establishment in the retail
park for the duration.
There is no signage on entering the retail park, small signs
around the area but nothing near the space the driver was
parked, and no option to extend the time should you wish to
continue to use the facilities.
What would be the advised next steps? There is time to appeal at
the low rate, although the driver believes that this is an
unfair system and from research is not the only person caught
out using the facilities on site. There are signs dotted around.
Are you able to assist with a strategy for managing this? So we
think that there is scope to reply that the fine is cancelled on
the basis of the continued use of the establishments at the
retail park? There is wording on the back of the letter about
the responsibility reverting to the registered keeper? Is this
lawful?
Many thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 55881--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: January 30, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and also not compliant with
PBA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section
8.1.2(e).
So, it is not PoFA compliant which means that they cannot hold
the Keeper liable. Only the driver can be liable and they have
no idea who that is unless the Keeper blabs it to them,
inadvertently or otherwise. No saying silly things like "I did
this or that". The Keeper always refers to the driver in the
third person such as "The driver did this or that". Don't tell
'em your name Pike!
As it has also breached the PPSCoP, that will be another point
that can be used in the subsequent POPLA appeal because they
will reject any initial appeal, no matter what is pleaded.
However, have you tried Plan A yet? Find out the landowner or
their managing agent. These detail are usually found at the
bottom of the big advertising plinth near the entrance to a
retail park.
Plan B is the initial appeal. You mention the "low rate". Do you
mean the 40% "mugs discount"? The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is
nothing more than a speculative invoice from an unregulated
private parking company for an alleged breach of contract by the
driver. Would you pay any speculative voice from a private
company simply because they are offering a 40% discount?
If you feel the PCN has been issued unfairly then you either
follow the advice and fight it or you don't waste our time and
just pay the ex-clampers what they're asking and become a part
of the problem.
If Plan A doesn't work, then for Plan B you simply send the
following which will be rejected with a POPLA code for a Plan C
appeal:
Easy one to deal with... 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.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. UKPA has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
UKPA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 55886--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: January 30, 2025, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for your help.
It will be tricky to try and get back to the site to understand
who the landowner/managing agent is. The few signs are too small
on Google maps.
Per the NtK, the wording includes “we have the right to recover
any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.” Would this not
satisfy para 9(2)(e)(i) or would it need to be as an alternative
to providing the name and address for the driver and so the
wording included in the first paragraph isn’t compliant?
In terms of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e), again is it the wording that the
letter says “if you appeal within 28 days,” and doesn’t clarify
when that 28 days starts from? Despite it saying in the sentence
before that appeals must be received within 28 days of the issue
date of notice?
Apologies I just want to be clear on the law and how the notice
is non-compliant.
Additionally, do I appeal, or write to them separately on the
basis that the notice isn’t valid?
#Post#: 55910--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: January 30, 2025, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) states:
9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for
the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with
this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
[indent](2) The notice must—
[indent](e) state that the creditor does not know both the name
of the driver and a current address for service for the driver
and invite the keeper—
[indent](i) to pay the unpaid parking
charges[/indent][/indent][/indent]
Let's put that together:
[indent]The notice must state that the creditor does not know
both the name of the driver and a current address for service
for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges.[/indent]
This is the reasoning that the NtK (the notice) is not FULLY
compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA.
This shows how it is argued:
--- Quote ---
> Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must
include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands
their liability and has a clear course of action.
>
> The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly
requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to
either:
>
> • Pay the parking charge, or
> • Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper
was not the driver).
>
> This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly
stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay
because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict
wording requirements of PoFA.
>
> PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention
is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and
unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking
charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of
wording that PoFA expects.
>
> If the notice only says, for example, "the Parking Charge is
now payable" or "payment is required" without directly inviting
the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording
must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an
unambiguous way.
>
> The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they
fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a
valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent
adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of
explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
--- End Quote ---
Regarding the wording in PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e):
[indent]The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs
the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of
receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate
applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14
days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification
that their appeal has been rejected[/indent]
I then goes on to state in Note 2 to that section:
[indent]NOTE 2: A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, to have
been delivered 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]
We can take it that "delivered", "given" and "received" are the
same thing.
The right to appeal is 28 days from receipt of the parking
charge, not from the date of "issue" of the notice.
In your case, the notice was issued on Tuesday 14th January and
it correctly states on the front that payment is to be made by
Friday 14th February. However, look at the back of the NtK under
"Appeals & transfer of liability". It incorrectly sates that all
appeals must be received within 28 days of issue of the notice.
That is clearly wrong.
This is a strong procedural point because it demonstrates
non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) section 8.1.2(e). The appeal deadline has been
misstated, which is a clear breach of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e). This
misleads the recipient into believing they have less time to
appeal than they actually do, which is both procedurally unfair
and legally significant in both a POPLA appeal and a potential
court defence.
The PPSCoP is a binding requirement for British Parking
Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC)
members. Any breach of the Code undermines the legitimacy of the
parking charge and the operator’s compliance with regulations.
Since the appeal timeframe is an important consumer right, a
misstatement of it is a substantial flaw in the operator’s case.
I could go on, but you get the gist, hopefully.
#Post#: 55914--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: January 30, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Amazing - thank you so much! This is so comprehensive, I really
appreciate the time spent setting this out for me.
So to confirm, as I have seen different approaches listed on
MSE, do I use the appeal process to write this, or just contact
them directly?
#Post#: 55979--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: January 31, 2025, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You simply appeal with the text I gave you earlier. It is going
to be rejected but puts them on notice that they are not dealing
with low-hanging fruit.
Simply make sure you do not select any dropdown menus or options
that say that you are the driver. You are only appealing as the
Keeper or "other".
#Post#: 59714--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: February 26, 2025, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Rejection letter received.
Next step is to appeal to POPLA.
Should I use the legal basis given in the chain for the body of
my argument? Is there any other wording or advice you have that
I should use?
Thank you for your help!
#Post#: 59719--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 26, 2025, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should probably obscure some details - your name, address,
reference number, POPLA code for example.
I love the scare tactics - £5,000 and 6-8 penalty points. They
love to include these kind of things, don’t they?
#Post#: 59726--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: b789
Date: February 26, 2025, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please redact the letter of your personal details and
repost it please. Without seeing their reasoning, it is
difficult to provide accurate advice.
#Post#: 59751--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - The Colonnades Croydon - 31 Minutes over stay
DIR By: fizz90
Date: February 26, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies and thank you so much for flagging the details!
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page