DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95141--------------------------------------------------
Birmingham High Street – PCN for Parking Outside Bay Markings
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: October 22, 2025, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
HTML https://ibb.co/tpDGSQNZ
HTML https://ibb.co/n8MKctkv
Got an NCP PCN for “parking outside bay markings.” This was at a
spot that’s basically two and a half bays. Only two cars ever
fit there. The car next to me was already on/over the line, so I
parked outside the line too—no space was blocked, no loss of
capacity. I was in a rush due to an emergency.
Key points:
No bay lost; two cars used the only two usable spaces.
Markings/layout are confusing (the “half bay”).
Amount feels punitive given no loss.
I’m the registered keeper and haven’t named the driver.
Questions:
Best grounds to appeal to NCP/POPLA?
Anything specific I should request (contract with landowner,
signage map, proof of bay layout/maintenance, etc.)?
Any template wording for “no loss / unclear markings / PoFA
compliance”?
Thanks in advance!
#Post#: 95144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Birmingham High Street – PCN for Parking Outside Bay
Markings
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 22, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They aren't alleging a loss, they're alleging that by parking
outside of the markings of a bay, the driver breached the terms
of a contract leading to them owing a contractual charge.
To advise further it would be useful to see:
- Photos of the bay(s) in question
- Photos of the signage in the car park
- A brief explanation of the nature of the emergency to which
you refer
#Post#: 95146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Birmingham High Street – PCN for Parking Outside Bay
Markings
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: October 22, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/qFrkqFW5
I do not have pictures of the signage (I tried searching on
google).
An accident occurred on the motorway as I was travelling to
court, so I was in a rush to get there on time.
#Post#: 95174--------------------------------------------------
Re: Birmingham High Street – PCN for Parking Outside Bay
Markings
DIR By: b789
Date: October 22, 2025, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant. PoFA Schedule
4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to “specify the vehicle,
the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates”.
This NCP notice only gives: “Date of incident: 14/10/2025”.
There is no period (e.g. “between 10:32 and 10:45”), and the
reference to an “incident date” does not meet the statutory
wording.
Additionally, under paragraph 9(2)(f), the notice must: “warn
the keeper that if... after the period of 28 days beginning with
the day after that on which the notice is given... the amount
remains unpaid, the creditor will have the right to recover the
unpaid charge from the keeper”.
The notice does not clearly contain this mandatory warning.
Instead, it only gives a generic statement about debt recovery
after 28 days. This is not the same as the statutory warning of
keeper liability and therefore invalidates any PoFA transfer of
liability.
You can also argue that PoFA requires that the notice specifies
“the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked”. The text
mentions “Birmingham High Street”, which is vague and does not
identify the precise private land or car park name (e.g.
“Birmingham High Street NCP Car Park”). Lack of specificity
could be argued as non-compliant under paragraph 9(2)(a).
With the above in mind, you only appeal as the Keeper. They have
no idea who the driver is unless you blab it to them,
inadvertently or otherwise. There is no legal obligation on the
Keeper to identify the driver. You only ever refer to the driver
in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver
did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
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. NCP 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.
NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1