** discontinued ** PCN - Permit Holders Only - Civil Enforcement Ltd

[richardadc]

Hi,

I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd for the car being parked in an office car park on Easter Sunday. Please see attached image of the notice in the car park stating the only T&C is that it's for permit holders only. I've tried to do my own investigation and from what I read I can appeal this on that there was no contract in place as the offer was for permit holders only. If this is the case is there a template I can use for a reply to them?

Many thanks for any help.

[richardadc]

PCN notice attached. Please note the picture only seems to show the driver outside the car park. I'm also not sure if the driver stayed there for the entire time mentioned - the time matches with when the driver normally drops lunch off for their child (11.30am) at Gymnastics and then the time she is picked up at 2pm. The driver sometimes stays but can't remember if they did on that day. The driver only uses the car park to walk through to Gymnastics which is on the other side of the Office building and are not related to the office.

[des8]

That is a most peculiar PCN and sign,
As you say Parking forbidden therefore no contract

Also the sign refers to "these Terms" and there aren't any .....
.....and the PCN requires payment in accordance with these (non existent) terms and conditions apparently shown clearly on the sign!!!

Someone (? ostell ) will be along to show you how best to deal with it

[ostell]

Edit that first post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver..... " etc. Remove the PCN number.

The sign is prohibiting in that there is not an offer to park for non permit holders. To say that a contract was offered to non permit holders is perverse. With no contract in place then there can be no contract n place then there can be no breach of that contract. Any request for payment can only be regarded as a penalty, which is not allowed.

As no contract was made then any action can only be made by the landowner for trespass. As CEL are a mere agent they do not have the standing to make such a claim

The PCN fails to say which of the conditions was allegedly breached, nor show that there was no permit.

The bottom of the notice, in the tear off slip, is the only mention of POFA. There is case law, appeal or higher, that states that a tear of slip cannot be considered part of the document. Therefore tCEL have issued a Notice to Keeper that does not comply with the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable. That case law for the tear off slip has ben mentioned in the PePiPoo forums, I can't remember it of the top of my head. OK Found it, it was High Court. here's the link to PePiPoo

So an appeal to CEL as the keeper using the points above. Post for critique before you send.

[richardadc]

Thank you both. It has been really helpful and it is much appreciated.

I've put together a draft as below which is basically a rehash of some other letters I've seen including the one Ostell referenced:

I am writing to appeal the above PCN sent to me as the registered keeper of the above vehicle, based on the following grounds:

1) The PCN fails to metion which condtion has been breached
2) You have not shown that the keeper of the vehicle is in fact liable for the charge

1) The location of the alleged incident is shown to be signed with notices that prohibit parking in some way. That is “Permit Holders Only”, “No Unauthorised Parking” “Parking for customers only”. In fact the signs at the location say "Permit Holders Only". However, there is no proof that a permit has not been displayed.

If the reason is to be assumed to be for a permit not being displayed, a sign of the above nature sort makes no contractual consideration to a driver. If parking is forbidden to all but Permit Holders you cannot contract with a driver to do exactly what the restriction forbids. A contract must have 3 elements; Offer, then consideration then acceptance. No offer was made at the time of the alleged contravention.

As this cannot be a contractual agreement it is therefore actionable only as a tort of trespass and that has to be progressed by the actual landholder/owner or lessee. I have a reasonable assumption you are neither.

The result of that is that when you applied for my registered keeper details under the KADOE agreement with the DVLA you did so unlawfully knowing that the driver was not a permit holder or no permit was on display. You cannot use my keepers details personally as you have no proprietary interest in the land, and you are forbidden to pass them to a third party, the landowner who is the only one to take an action for tort of trespass

Continuation of your claim against me having been informed of this breach will only serve to exacerbate that breach.


2) You have not identified the driver at the time of the alleged infringement and as such it is assumed that your company intends to rely on the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Schedule 4 Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the PoFA stipulate the mandatory information that must be included in a Notice to Keeper (NTK), in order for it to be valid. Amongst many other requirements, it stipulates that the NTK must:

● Advise that the driver is responsible for the parking charge and the amount, and that it has not been paid in full

Unfortunately, your company has failed to provide the above information on the NTK and therefore it fails to meet the requirements of Paragraph 6 Schedule 4 of the PoFA in establishing keeper liability.

It is acknowledged that your company provided the required information on the payment slip enclosed with your NTK, however, the High Court ruled in the case of Barnet Council v The Parking Adjudicator 2006 EWHC 2357 that the payment slip constitutes a separate document to the notice to owner. This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.



As there is no contract in place, and in any case you have failed to establish keeper liability under the PoFA, I will not be making any payment in respect of this PCN. Your alleged contract is with the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement, and I am afraid that I am unable to assist you with identifying the driver on the specified date and time.

Please ensure that your reply includes a notice of cancellation of the above PCN.

[ostell]

That looks good.

[richardadc]

Thank you. Am i correct in that I should leave the appeal until the end of the 28 days to make sure they can't issue a correct NTK?

[ostell]

If there was no windscreen ticket then they has to get the NTK to you within 14 days. If that time is past then why wait.

[richardadc]

Just as an update CEL have sent me a notice of discontinuance on Wednesday. Moneyclaimonline isn’t however showing anything yet.

[charitynjw]

Excellent news!

I'll give ostell a nudge.

Also des8

& Amethyst for info

[Amethyst]

When was the hearing set for ? ( not sure how far along the court process you'd gotten ) I'd give court a call middle of next week just to check that they have received the NoD and vacated any hearing. Then that should be the end of it. Court don't inform you of a discontinuance generally as the claimant is obliged to serve you with a copy ( and we're meant to trust them lol )

Presumably your defence was on the same grounds as your previous letter (post 5 above) ?