DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71734--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: b789
Date: May 15, 2025, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It could do with fleshing out a bit and more references to the
actual points you are making. For example, you could include a
copy of the relevant byelaws rather that just saying that they
exist.
While a direct link to the byelaws is not readily available
online, you can obtain a copy by contacting the following
authorities:
[indent]• South Cambridgeshire District Council: As the local
authority, they hold records of byelaws within their
jurisdiction.
• Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust: This charity manages Milton
Country Park and may provide information on park
regulations.[/indent]
This wording was used earlier, so include it again:
--- Quote ---
> The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to
statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of
the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State
and in operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not
“relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4.
>
> Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with
its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due
to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to
hold me liable as Hirer.
--- End Quote ---
Also, it's not worth trying to argue "Genuine Pre-Estimate of
Loss" (GPEOL) in 2025, unless you are dealing with very old
signage or pre-2015 PCNs. These days, it is usually better using
arguments such as:
[indent]• Lack of PoFA compliance;
• Land not being “relevant land”;
• Unclear, prohibitive, or misleading signage;
• No contract formed / no adequate notice of terms;
• Unlawful data use / KADOE breach;
• Disability discrimination (if applicable).[/indent]
Only mention GPEOL if:
[indent]• The signage still refers to it;
• You are making a point about inconsistency or confusion in the
charge wording;
• Or you want to undermine a charge that looks arbitrary and is
grossly disproportionate.[/indent]
#Post#: 71751--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 15, 2025, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> While a direct link to the byelaws is not readily available
online
>
--- End Quote ---
Here's one I made earlier ;)
Milton Park Byelaws
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnlf6mUy37Sl5gDophgz7bN5ykRFLJ-w/view?usp=sharing
Accompanying information from the FOI I made at the time:
--- Quote ---
> I hope the following will answer your query:
>
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
land/boundaries for Milton Country Park and there was nothing
with the byelaws.
> Please note that the original lease for the Park comes from
Cambridgeshire County Council and is now run by Cambridge Sport
Lakes Trust.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 71775--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: May 16, 2025, 3:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I must apologise, because, this doesn't really make sense to me?
I think you have advised me to only add points 1&2 into my
POPLA response. So my grounds of appeal are driver not identifed
and Milton Country park by laws?
I have removed the other points. So my appeal is as below? I can
also add the Milton Park Bylaws document. Do I also need to
upload the PCN and a copy of my ticket? Sorry I'm not very good
drafting letters on topics I have little knowledge on.
Thank you for your help and support.
POPLA Code: 6061355468
Parking Charge Notice: 288486/335086
Vehicle Registration: **** ***
Date of Issue: 11 April 2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper
Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable to Milton
Country Park
2. Driver not identified – No presumption of driver liability
1. No Keeper Liability – PoFA 2012 not applicable
The land in question—Milton Country Park—is subject to statutory
control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the
Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in
operation since 2 May 1994. As such, the land is not “relevant
land” under PoFA Schedule 4. The land is not “relevant land” as
defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, and therefore, the
registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not
been identified.
ParkingEye are attempting to hold me liable as the registered
keeper, despite this being a location where keeper liability
cannot be established under PoFA.
Since the operator has neither invoked PoFA nor complied with
its conditions, and since PoFA could not apply in any event due
to the statutory status of the land, there is no lawful basis to
hold me liable as Hirer.
2. Driver not identified
At no stage have I identified the driver, nor is there any legal
requirement to do so. ParkingEye have failed to demonstrate who
was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged
contravention.
As keeper, I cannot be held liable for a charge incurred by an
unknown third party at a location not covered by PoFA.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds
this appeal and instructs ParkingEye to cancel the Parking
Charge Notice.
#Post#: 71839--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: b789
Date: May 16, 2025, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It shouldn't need more than that for POPLA to accept the appeal.
However, if ParkingEye do not withdraw, then they will provide
their evidence at a later date and you can then see what they
have not rebutted in your appeal and counter that.
It is straightforward. The operator has not issued a PoFA
complaint NtK, the location is not relevant land anyway. The
driver has not been identified.
POPLA will first of all assess whether the Keeper can be liable.
they can't. Then they will assess whether the driver has been
identified. They haven't.
ParkingEye have nowhere to go with this and the assessor should
find accordingly.
#Post#: 71932--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: May 17, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[react][/react] Thank you so much for you help on this. Just a
quick question, when submitting my appeal on the POPLA website
am I selecting;
I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at
the time of the alleged improper parking.
Or
Other
Just want to select the correct option.
Best regards.
#Post#: 71933--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 17, 2025, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Other"
The alternative option would be untrue, as you are the
registered keeper.
#Post#: 72154--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: May 19, 2025, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks all. I have submitted my POPLA appeal. I will advise
outcome.
Interestingly, there has been an article in the local newspaper
regarding Milton Country Park parking;
HTML https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/visitors-popular-cambridgeshire-country-park-31648979
#Post#: 73755--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: Chelsblue
Date: May 29, 2025, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, I have received an Action Required email from POPLA and
have been asked to 'Please provide your comments on the operator
evidence'. The main text is as follows;
Case History
11/04/2025 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and
conditions, prior to DVLA request
15/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
18/04/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
25/04/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
25/04/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
25/04/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued
for processing.
25/04/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued
for processing.
02/05/2025 Letter Issued - Driver Details Required non POFA with
FAQs Non-POFA
05/05/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
05/05/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued
for processing.
15/05/2025 Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Paid Parking
Insufficient with FAQs Non-POFA
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the
signage (enclosed).
Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
To obtain a season permit, you must visit the site office with
your full, correct vehicle registration & pay the
appropriate rate
Blue Badge holders – please display the clock portion of your
Blue Badge in your vehicle and present the photo
portion to site office or scan one of the QR codes on display to
register for a 24 hour parking permit.
Park within marked bays No parking on yellow lines/hatched areas
We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs
situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the
car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
All available payment options can be found within the enclosed
signage. The full, correct vehicle registration
must be inputted when parking payments are made.
Please see below information relating to the payment options on
site:
Payment Options: Payment Machine (Metric) and evology pay
Number of Payment Machines: 1
Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not
council owned and that we have written authority
to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from
the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in
his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is
acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to
enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract
between ourselves and the motorist will be
enforceable by us as a party to that contract.
Additional Information
Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The BPA has provided clarity to both motorists and parking
management companies regarding grace periods
which can be found in the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice.
www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring
Parkingeye are fully compliant with the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice in relation to Grace
Periods.
Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras
and not CCTV cameras to monitor car
parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles
entering and exiting the car park and compares this
data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and,
where applicable, any payment or permit that may
relate to the registration captured.
We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping
with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates
adequate colour contrast between the text and the
backgrounds advised in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice.
Please note, our website appeals portal now asks the appellant
to confirm that all supporting evidence relating
to the Parking Charge has been attached. This confirmation is
displayed in the website appeal document
included in this evidence pack.
There are 47 pages in total, the rest of the letter has copies
of previous correspondence and photos of signage and parking
machines.
Do I need to respond and if so what do I need to say? Again
thank you for your help and assistance on this. Best regards.
#Post#: 73761--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 29, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to rebut everything Parking Eye says that you disagree
with, including - but not limited to - sending the Milton Park
Byelaws (Reply #31 above) if you are satisfied that they cover
the area you parked and therefore it is not private land as
claimed.
#Post#: 73764--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Milton Country Park, Cambridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 29, 2025, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure the OP needs to overcomplicate this with more
references to the byelaws - ParkingEye essentially concede the
entire appeal themselves:
--- Quote from: Chelsblue link ---
>
> Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
>
--- End Quote ---
[indent][i]ParkingEye's response fails to rebut the points
raised in my appeal. My grounds of appeal are that I am not
liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle, as ParkingEye
are unable to use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) to recover the charge from me. Helpfully, ParkingEye
confirm this in their response, stating "Please be advised, this
Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012".
As ParkingEye accept that they are not using PoFA to recover
this charge, only the driver may be liable. The driver has not
been identified. I cannot be held liable as the registered
keeper and accordingly my appeal must be upheld.[i][/indent]
As an example, written quickly, so others may be able to
improve.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page