DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79840--------------------------------------------------
Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Smellydog Date: July 6, 2025, 5:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a penalty charge to the registered owner from parking
at the university of sussex, multi storey car park.
I am planning to write an appeal. Any advice for the grounds for
appeal would be appreciated.
Attached is the Parking charge notice front and back.
Was going to pay it to avoid the agro but missed the discount
period.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/lTR73mJ
HTML https://imgur.com/a/lTR73mJ
[img]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/lTR73mJ[/img]
TIA
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Dave65 Date: July 7, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First it is not a penalty notice, it is a private parking notice
to the keeper not the owner.
I`ve copied an appeal I saw a while ago from someone at Durham
University. First Parking do a lot of University's.
Not the same parking issue, but you may be able to use parts of
it.
"Durham University Car Parking PCN
Success! First Parking withdrew within an hour of making my
appeal to POPLA
Thanks for all the advice on here - its has saved me from lining
some scumbags pockets!
Here's my POPLA appeal for anyone who is interested (images
removed):
A Parking Charge Notice was issued on 7th October 2019 and
received by me, the registered keeper
of XXXX XXX for an alleged contravention of “Parked on double
yellow lines or in a cross hatched
area’’ at Durham University. I am writing to you as the
registered keeper and would be grateful if
you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:
1 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served
2 – Ambiguous wording on signage
3 – Terms and conditions not set out in full on signage
4 – Contravention was on private land so road markings are
unenforceable
5 – The parking during this alleged contravention was causing
neither a hazard to others
nor damage to the University’s property
6 – No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts
or charge drivers
1 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served
This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for
keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they
have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from
myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion
on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served
at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed
wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.
The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as
follows:
''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;
*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person
acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7,
followed by a notice to keeper in
accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a
notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper
MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’
The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s
address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a
total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any
notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently
failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen toflout the
strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have
consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper
liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as
the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not
properly given
2 - Ambiguous wording on signage (please see Image 1 below)
The signage states "A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £70 will be
issued to vehicles parking without prior approval through the
University permit to park scheme" - The vehicle in question has
approval to park as supplied through the University Permit To
Park Scheme. The signage also states “Vehicles to be parked
within marked bays/designated parking areas” – this is
ambiguous. It is unclear whether this means “must be parked
within marked bays OR designated parking areas” or “must be
parked within marked bays IN designated parking areas”. The
vehicle was not parked in a bay but it was parked in a
designated parking area i.e. a car park, and so was seen to
comply with the signage.
3 – Terms and conditions not set out in full on signage (please
see Image 1 below)
The signage states “to be parked in accordance with the
University's parking policy" – there is no indication of the
content of the University’s parking policy or where to find it.
Upon entering the car park, the driver is not given indication
of the full terms and conditions in clear and concise language
and therefore cannot be expected to be able to comply with the
policies set out by the land owner.
4 – Contravention was on private land so road markings are
unenforceable
The contravention occurred on privately owned land (owned by
Durham University) and as such any road markings cannot legally
be enforced in the manner that they can on a road owned by the
Highways Authority or the council.
5 – The parking during this alleged contravention was causing
neither a hazard to others nor damage to the University’s
property (please see Image 2 and Image 3 below)
The vehicle was parked on a very wide section of pavement and as
such was not causing an obstruction to pedestrian traffic or
vehicular traffic. The purpose of employing a private parking
company is to ensure that vehicles are not parked in a manner
which causes a hazard to others or damage to property. The
vehicle was parked in a manner as not to be an obstruction to
either pedestrian or vehicular traffic and it was not causing
damage to University property.
6 - No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts
or charge drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the
land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in
their own right, nor to pursue charges for reach in their own
name. In the absence of such title, First Parking LLP must have
assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for
breach in their own right, including at court level. A
commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic
standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the
strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I
therefore put First Parking LLP to strict proof to provide POPLA
and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the
contract between
First Parking LLP and the landowner, not just another agent or
retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be
clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to
First Parking LLP.
Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of
Practice requires parking operators to have
the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land.
Section 7.1 states:“If you do not own the land on which you are
carrying out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The
written confirmation must be given before you can start
operating on the land in question and give you the authority to
carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site
that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that
the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to
the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue
outstanding parking charges”. Section 7.3 states: “The written
authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of
operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that
may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement.''
I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a
contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner
gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This
is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not
enough to hold me liable in law to pay First Parking LLP. First
Parking LLP have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or
penalties of any description in any court.
I put First Parking LLP to strict proof of compliance with all
of the above requirements.
#Post#: 79922--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: b789 Date: July 7, 2025, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you don't make an initial appeal by the 10th July, you are
not going together a chance to try your luck with POPLA.
The NtK is not compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) so you should not
identify the driver.
I'm not go to put much effort into this one if you are or were
to prepared to pay it as the mugs discount rate. You either
decide to fight it or not.
#Post#: 79945--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Smellydog Date: July 7, 2025, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both, [member=26]b789[/member] and
[member=1555]Dave65[/member] writing it up now and posting it.
#Post#: 112380--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Smellydog Date: March 7, 2026, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received particulars of claim and responded to MCOL for extra
time.
Attached is the particulars of claim and I've drafted some
wordings for the response. Any help would be very helpful.TIA.
[img width=1100
height=1465]
HTML https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1772905546077-238d81d8-8f79-4a44-be3a-475e1cea3cb9.jpeg[/img]
Parking Fine Defence
Grounds for defence are as follows:
The defendant denies liability for the claim.
The Claimants Particulars of Claim (PoC) fails to comply with
CPR 16.4(1)(a) as they do not set out a clear and concise
statement of facts. The PoC fails to specify:
The full terms of the alleged contract.
Whether the claim is for breach of contract or a contractual
charge.
How the sum claimed, including the additional £210 has been
calculated.
How the claimant asserts keeper liability under PoFA.
The specific date of each contravention.
The exact location of each contravention.
The defendant invites the court to strike out the claim or order
the claimant to re-please with proper details.
No notice to keeper (NtK) was sent for the allegation on the
22/07/2025.
A notice to keeper was sent following an appeal with the
claimant in 2 instances. Although, the claimants 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.
The Notice to Keeper is issued too late to transfer liability
from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Paragraph 9(4)
requires delivery of a Notice to Keeper within 14 days where no
windscreen ticket was served. A notice to keeper was sent beyond
this date for the 2 instances. Therefore, the statutory
conditions have not been met, and the operator cannot transfer
liability from the driver to the keeper.
The claimants NtK does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4,
9(2)(e)(i). PoFA requires wording that explicityly links the
keeper to the payment obligation, either by inviting them to pay
or provide the drivers details. The NtK only requests the
details of the driver and provides no payment instructions, with
no indication the keeper is invited to pay. PoFA compliance must
be explicit; implied obligations do not suffice. Keeper
liability does not apply.
The claimant seeks an additional £210 beyond the parking charge
notice. PoFA 4(5) prohibits this, limiting rcevery to the amount
in 9(2)(d). The extra sum is an abuse of process.
The claimant is put to strict proof of standing, contractual
authority, and PoFA compliance.
The claim is without merit and should be struck out.
#Post#: 112409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Dave65 Date: March 8, 2026, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what has happened between July 7th 2025 and now?
What have you received or not received in that time, hopefully
you have not ignored anything.
#Post#: 112848--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Smellydog Date: March 11, 2026, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After I sent the appeal I received the rejection email, then
received emails from the debt collection agency.
#Post#: 112859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: InterCity125 Date: March 11, 2026, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may wish to add a line to the defence which rebuts any
assertion that the keeper could be assumed to be the driver.
Also state that you may rely on VCS Ltd v Edward if needed.
#Post#: 112872--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Dave65 Date: March 11, 2026, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you receive a "Letter before Claim" from their solicitors?
#Post#: 112875--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Charge Notice - University of Sussex
By: Smellydog Date: March 11, 2026, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, received a ‘Letter of Claim’
HTML https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1773248623658-df8b90b6-76cb-4459-9a4f-4ba7fb311b12.jpeg
*****************************************************