DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84463--------------------------------------------------
Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 6, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear all, I recently got two private parking notices a week
apart for parking in what looked to me like an ordinary stretch
of road. Whilst the sign was present I assumed it referred to
the parking spaces immediately behind it rather than the road
itself.
The parking fine says I wasn't in a marked bay, but from what I
understood unmarked roads are free to park on generally. The
double yellow lines are on the other side of the road.
It appears nexus group uses legal repesentaion from DCBL, which
seem to have a habit of writing a lot of threatening letters
then not actually bothering to turn up to CCJ.
I was considering either appealing or simply ignoring this, but
would like some advice on the matter.
If it did reach CCJ would I stand a reasonable change of winning
N.b this is a repost after the other was removed because it has
my address visible
Someone asked if had appealed yet. I have not, would there be
any utility in doing so?
#Post#: 84464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 6, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a fine, but the parking charge notice does not comply
with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to hold you, the registered
keeper, liable in place of the driver, who will not be
identified. In particular, what is the “period of parking”
specified?
--- Quote ---
> 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.
>
> (2)The notice must—
>
> (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
>
>
--- End Quote ---
That’s probably not the only PoFA failure.
#Post#: 84470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 6, 2025, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It was left on the road in the picture for about 5 hours on one
Sunday and 12 on another
#Post#: 84506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 6, 2025, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, I wasn’t asking how long you were parked for but
observing that since the PCN makes no mention of the period, you
should appeal on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012,
rather than on signage, although when it comes to POPLA you
should use all appeal points.
#Post#: 84554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 7, 2025, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there any participles bit of that legislation I should quote
in my appeal?
#Post#: 84555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 7, 2025, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
*particular I meant to say
#Post#: 84559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 7, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, they’ll reject any appeal anyway, you just want a POPLA
code, so look for a generic non-compliant appeal on the forum.
I quoted Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) above
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4).
#Post#: 84949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 10, 2025, 3:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve tried looking for a generic one but they all seem to be
tailored for a particular appeal. Does anyone have a generic
appeal I could use please
#Post#: 84973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Forget the "unclear signage". This will be an easy one to deal
with… as long as the unknown driver’s 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.
In particular, the NtK fails the mandatory requirement of PoFA
2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) to “specify the relevant land
on which the vehicle was parked”. “Liverpool Docks” is not a
single, clearly defined site but a vast and sprawling area
covering over 7 miles of waterfront, numerous car parks, roads,
and areas of land under different ownerships and operators. The
location is so vague that it is akin to alleging a contravention
at “London” or “Manchester”. This makes it impossible for the
keeper to verify signage, terms, or even if the operator had
authority over the exact spot.
“Liverpool Docks” plainly fails to specify any relevant land and
is evidence of the utter incompetence of this operator. 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.
>
> In particular, you have failed to comply with paragraph
9(2)(a) on two separate points, the first one being that by
failing to specify the relevant land — “Liverpool Docks” is an
absurdly vague term that does not meet the statutory test and
does not identify a single, specific car park, road or site. The
second point is that there is no "period of parking" stated. As
noted in the persuasive appellate court case of Brennan v
Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], without a defined
"period of parking", the notice is incapable of holding the
Keeper liable.
>
> Additionally, just to prove your firm's utter incompetence,
without a specified period of parking, you have failed to
evidence that the vehicle remained parked for longer than the
minimum consideration period, which means no contract was
formed. Good luck with that should you be so stupid as to try
and continue with this farcical PCN.
>
> There will be no admission as to who was driving and no
inference or assumptions can be drawn. Group Nexus 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.
Group Nexus 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#: 85006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 10, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page