DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114749--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: March 29, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Intercity - thanks for all your help. I'll post back here should
an LBA appear.
#Post#: 114984--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Innocentman
Date: March 31, 2026, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hang on a minute guys - this seems to be pretty crucial..
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> [quote]
> .
> .
> .
> Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph
requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be
directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver”
to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants
keeper liability.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
9(2)(e) says
(i) OR
(ii)
So "invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges" OR "if
the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the
creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver".
The NtK says
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/5YqqJ4DX/Screen-Hunter-3340.jpg
HTML https://postimg.cc/5YqqJ4DX
so they have complied with 9(2)(e). 9(2)(e) says do (i) OR (ii)
and they've done (ii).
No?
#Post#: 114989--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 1, 2026, 1:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No.
The legislation requires that the NtK invite the keeper to pay
the charges OR nominate another driver.
I understand the point which you are making - that the operator
has a choice as to which one they invite the driver to do - but
that isn't in keeping with the grammar of the text of the
legislation.
Also, ask yourself; what purpose would your interpretation
serve? It wouldn't make any sense or serve any purpose?
#Post#: 114990--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: ixxy
Date: April 1, 2026, 1:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN also quite clearly states that if the driver is not
identified they will pursue the keeper. The key issue here is
whether the NTK has to have the exact wording contained within
the legislation or not. Some people on here believe the wording
needs to be exact, others are not so sure and the private
parking companies and the independent appeals services certainly
don't think that is the case.
So until a claim gets to court that is solely defended on this
basis and wins we don't really have definitive answer (and even
then its not binding on other claims). So if a keeper doesn't
want to pay a PCN and has no proper grounds to appeal then it
makes for an official sounding appeal which will help,run the
clock down until a claim is possibly issued. If on there other
hand there are better grounds for appeal, clear breach of the
code, NTK issued too late, signage issues, frustration of
contract etc. , its much better to use those arguments as they
might actually get an appeal granted and if it isn't the keeper
is no worse off.
#Post#: 115002--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Innocentman
Date: April 1, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> No.
>
> The legislation requires that the NtK invite the keeper to pay
the charges OR nominate another driver.
>
> I understand the point which you are making - that the
operator has a choice as to which one they invite the driver to
do - but that isn't in keeping with the grammar of the text of
the legislation.
>
--- End Quote ---
Mmm. I understand the point which you are making, but IMO the
grammar is clear. The whole of Para 9(2) talks about what the
notice must do or contain - it must do (a) and (b) and (c) etc,
until we get to (e) which is to be read as 'the notice must do
(e)(i) or the notice must do (e)(ii)'.
If we look at 9(2)(a) it says that the notice must "specify the
vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period
of parking to which the notice relates".
9(2)(b) - "inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay
parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking
and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"
IMO if 9(2)(e) was meant to say that the notice must invite the
keeper to either pay up or to throw the driver under the bus it
would have been worded something like
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and
a current address for service for the driver and invite the
keeper to pay
the unpaid parking charges or if the keeper was not the driver
of the vehicle,
to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current
address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
But as it is, with a 9(2)(e)(i) separated from a 9(2)(e)(ii)
with a '; or' it's not saying 'the notice must invite the keeper
to do this or to do that', it's saying 'the notice must invite
the keeper to do this or the notice must invite the keeper to do
that'.
But as ixxy says, it would need a court case to determine
exactly what it means.
#Post#: 115007--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 1, 2026, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If 9(2)(e) was stated and then followed by 9(2)(e)(ii) but
without 9(2)(e)(i) then it would read as gibberish?
Namely;
The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver and invite the keeper if the keeper was not the driver of
the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver
and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the
notice on to the driver.
As I suggested earlier - what would be the point of allowing the
parking operator to chose between the two different invitations?
There's no question in my mind that the legislation requires
that the notice state the prescribed wording (or near enough)
AND then immediately offer the two limbed invitation to the
keeper.
I understand your point regarding your 'all-in-one' passage of
wording but it could be that legislators specifically wished to
underline the requirement of offering the two limbed invitation.
If you read other Acts then you will see that this method of
presentation is very commonplace - look at 9(2)(f) which also
contains a multi-limb requirement but this time under AND logic.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page