DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84329--------------------------------------------------
5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers Lane
/ Dagenham
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: August 5, 2025, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have 5 Parking Charge Notices all for different company
vehicles parked on Chequers Lane in Dagenham waiting to load at
a site on the road.
I appealed all 5 the latest one being today. 3 of them I
appealed 20 days ago and got a response for all 3 today, they
were all rejected.
I have attached: an example of the PCN, all 5 are the same
location and same situation; my appeal letter which I used for
each of them; their notice of rejection which was the same for
all 3, they came in the same email; and my response email (which
I am aware they won't respond to.)
I have also emailed the site we were delivering to on that
road/industrial estate, and asked if they can help resolve it,
so I'll see what they say.
But am I right in thinking they cannot pursue the keeper if it
was not issued under POFA 2012, which they explicitly say it is
not issued under in the rejection notices?
#Post#: 84361--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: Dave65
Date: August 6, 2025, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you were delivering goods to a property then this could be
covered by Jopson v Homeguard.
#Post#: 84393--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: August 6, 2025, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave65 link ---
>
> If you were delivering goods to a property then this could be
covered by Jopson v Homeguard.
>
--- End Quote ---
Maybe, but they weren't loading/unloading at that moment in
time, but waiting in queue to enter this site. The vehicles were
parked on the pavement or with wheels on the pavement, as all
the other vehicles do when queueing there. I can only guess it
is to allow space for other articulated lorries to turn in and
out of the sites on the road.
I emailed the customers site and they told me the road is owned
and operated by GLA, and that they themselves, and other
hauliers have been having the same issues, they said the fine is
given if wheels are on the pavement and "obstructing pedestrian
access", and this isn't mentioned on any Notice to Keeper. They,
advised we wouldn't get one if no wheels are on the pavement and
the vehicle is fully on the road and to inform our drivers of
this.
Now, if this was a public road in a town centre or residential
area and a Penalty Charge Notice from a council, then no problem
I'd just have them paid. But it's a private rundown dead-end
industrial estate road that leads to more industrial sites,
there is no one walking along there, and many vehicles stop on
there to wait to enter different sites, it seems to be common
practice (whether right or not).
As they did not issue the notice under POFA 2012, and explicity
stated that in their appeal rejections, how can they possibly
hope to win at POPLA? I can't tell if they are actually
genuinely stupid or they just do it to cause a nuisance in hopes
that we just pay instead of appealing to POPLA
#Post#: 84397--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: August 6, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show us the original Notice to Keeper you received. If
they are all identical, then just one will do, as long as you
are sure that they were all "issued" outside of the relevant
period.
If the contravention is for a fixed time and there is no other
'observation period' then again, they are all non-compliant with
PoFA. As they are a BPA member, they can all be appealed to
POPLA and if argued properly, will be cancelled.
Even if you get a duff assessor from POPLA and the appeal is
refused, it is not binding and this would not stand up in court.
#Post#: 84409--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: August 6, 2025, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Please show us the original Notice to Keeper you received. If
they are all identical, then just one will do, as long as you
are sure that they were all "issued" outside of the relevant
period.
>
> If the contravention is for a fixed time and there is no other
'observation period' then again, they are all non-compliant with
PoFA. As they are a BPA member, they can all be appealed to
POPLA and if argued properly, will be cancelled.
>
> Even if you get a duff assessor from POPLA and the appeal is
refused, it is not binding and this would not stand up in court.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi, I believe I did attach one of the original notices to my
post as a PDF did I not? I have added another as an image to
this comment.
In terms of the dates:
1st occurred on 12/06/25 - NtK issued 11/07/25
2nd occurred on 13/06/25 - NtK issued 11/07/25
3rd occurred on 13/06/25 - NtK issued 11/07/25
4th occurred on 19/06/25 - NtK issued 22/07/25
5th occurred on 07/07/25 - NtK issued 04/08/25
First 3 were rejected by PPM yesterday and each stated "the
above PCN is non-POFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)". I have
attached a screenshot of one of those too.
#Post#: 84417--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: August 6, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So appeal each one with an individual appeal to POPLA. Enjoy the
Schadenfreude knowing that unless they concede, it will cost
them about £30 per POPLA appeal.
I suggest the following as your POPLA appeal:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was
not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
>
> The operator has stated that this PCN is NOT issued under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). That alone makes it
legally impossible for them to pursue me as keeper. However,
even if they had attempted POFA compliance, they failed to meet
the statutory requirements.
>
> Under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4), where no notice to
driver was issued, a Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be given
(delivered) within 14 days of the alleged parking event. In this
case:
>
> [indent] The alleged parking event occurred on [insert date
of parking event]
> The Notice to Keeper was issued on [insert issue date of
NtK]
> The presumed given date is [insert date: two working days
after issue date]
> That is [insert number of days from event to given date],
which exceeds the statutory 14-day 'relevant period'[/indent]
>
> This breach alone disqualifies the operator from transferring
liability to the keeper. They have not identified the driver,
and I am under no legal obligation to do so. PoFA does not
impose any duty on the keeper to assist the operator in
identifying the driver, nor does it permit enforcement against
the keeper in the absence of full compliance.
>
> As the registered keeper and not the driver, I cannot be held
liable. This appeal must be upheld on this point alone.
>
> Additionally, the operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner
that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and
pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and
the assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with
Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent] the identity of the landowner,
> a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> applicable byelaws,
> the duration and scope of authority granted,
> detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> the means of issuing PCNs,
> responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> and the operators obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84494--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: August 6, 2025, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much! That's great!
This afternoon at work I actually got another 4 PCN's for this
same place. This time two of the vehicles were fully on the
road, so the customer whose site our vehicles were loading at,
were wrong about saying they only get them if the vehicle has
wheels on the footpath. And one of the PCN's had pictures of a
vehicle that isn't even ours 🤦‍♂️
Give me strength! I bet PPM will still reject my appeal and take
it to POPLA though. I'd bet a tenner on it lol
#Post#: 84532--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: August 7, 2025, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course they will reject the appeals. No money in it for them
if they accept. Don't worry, it will cost them £30 a pop if you
take it to POPLA and they don't concede.
You are dealing with ex-clamper bottom-dwellers who are out to
scam you for as much as they think they can get.
#Post#: 89351--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: September 10, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal for the NtK with the wrong vehicle images on was
accepted by PPM.
The other eight appeals were rejected.
The first four that were rejected were appealed to POPLA on
19/08/2025. And today, 22 days later, they were successful as
PPM failed to provide evidence.
Hopefully, the other 4 which I appealed on 01/09 will also not
be contested.
#Post#: 89358--------------------------------------------------
Re: 5 x PCN's from Private Parking Management (PPM) at Chequers
Lane / Dagenham
DIR By: b789
Date: September 10, 2025, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please post the POPLA reasoning. Were they all made by
the same assessor? If not, please post each result if they are
not identical. You can name the assessor as it is in the public
domain.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page