PCN - not parked in single bay

[TKMac]

I have followed the excellent advice on this and other forums and reached POPLA stage with a private parking company from the South West. I appealed as registered keeper, have not identified driver.

The driver of our (very large) vehicle parked across more than one parking space in a fairly empty beach car park at 6 pm in the evening in early April.

Ticket paid and displayed. PCN affixed to vehicle on return.

Loss to car park owner / parking company zero as there were loads of spaces available and no one was prevented from parking.
(Incidentally, no other parking facilities available for an over-size vehicle offered in the area)

Parking charge notice received, waited for NTK, appealed, it was rejected (discount period extended, no POPLA code), appealed with further points (at their invitation), also offered them a small sum of money for the extra space occupied and their postage costs(!). This was rejected again but POPLA code sent this time.

I'm working on an appeal based on samples on here, Pepipoo and money saving expert. My focus is on GPEOL - think this is still valid as my case different from Beavis, but also wanted to check my understanding about a couple of additional points as some of the template appeals are very complicated!

1. Submitting that the parking company did not have authority to issue charges - should I research this first i.e. find out if this is indeed the case (if so, how - have tried Land Registry but unable to find owner), or just make their life difficult by getting them to prove it?

2. Arguing that it is an unfair / unenforceable contract. Signage states "By using this facility you accept the terms of this contract and agree to pay any charges detailed below." Does this therefore qualify for the unfair argument?

Picture of signage (sorry it's a bit blurry), PCN and NTK attached (I hope!) in case any of these offer additional arguments for appeal. I also have photos of the near empty car park.

Any thoughts appreciated!

Thank you

[mystery1]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

The notice to keeper looks crap to me. I'm just starting 3 days on at work so it will be Sunday or so before i get a popla appeal done for you.

M1

[TKMac]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

That's amazingly kind of you M1 - thank you! I have until 13th July to send my appeal, so Sunday is fantastic. Really appreciate it.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.




1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.




2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.




3. AS Parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.




4. AS Parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.




5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.


6. Keeper liability.




1.The charges are penalties.




The charges are represented as a failure to pay which is disputed. The driver on the day had difficulty in getting in and out of the car park due to traffic. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"




£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for a small hourly sum. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. £100 is clearly a penalty. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs.




I require AS Parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. UKPC cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.




According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for shoppers and several hundred pounds were spent then there is no loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

It was held in Parking Eye v Cargius that Beavis does not apply in a paid car park and that the charge is a penalty.


2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid a small sum. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.


As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.


3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi

AS Parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that AS Parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.



So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between AS Parking and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1


I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.


The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”


For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"




5. ANPR ACCURACY


This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.


So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.




6. Keeper liability.


The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 allows the opportunity for parking companies liable for the actions of the driver but only if full compliance is achieved. In the case of an ANPR situation compliance with section 9 is required.


Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle




4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met ....


6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8


8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) 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;


(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;


(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);


(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—


(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and


(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));


(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—


(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or


(ii)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;


(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—


(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and


(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,


the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;


(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;


(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).


(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).


(4)The notice must be given by—


(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or


(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.


(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.


(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.


(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.


(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—


(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and


(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.







The notice to keeper does not specify a period of parking. The notice merely indicates a time of entry in to the car park and an exit time from the car park. The BPA code of practice makes reference to the fact that entry is not parking and dictates a grace period must be allowed partly for this very reason. As the keeper is not the person who was driving the keeper cannot know what the period of parking is and the legislation dictates it must be specified, presumably for that very reason. In Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) it was held that the specified information required to be provided by legislation should indeed be accurate and that the failure made the relevant notice invalid. It was also the deciding factor in Parking Eye v Mrs X Case No: 3JD08399 IN THE ALTRINCHAM COUNTY COURT.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4...&alloworigin=1


Sections E & F has not been complied with at all. Other sections are not totally complied with either. The keeper is not invited to pay.






M1

[TKMac]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

Hi M1, thank you so much for doing this!

It wasn't an ANPR car park, it was pay and display, so I will remove these sections. The driver did pay & display for the entire period so the loss remains zero, even if they do not offer any period of free parking.

Also, their signage was blue / black on a white background so all take out this reference to BPA CoP. There was signage by the pay and display maching but not at the entrance - should I therefore retain the points regarding adequate signage or is this again only an ANPR requirement?

If I edit your version with a few points of my own, would you mind casting an eye over it before I submit to POPLA?

Thanks again
Tkmac

[mystery1]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

It wasn't an ANPR car park, it was pay and display, so I will remove these sections.
Also, their signage was blue / black on a white background so all take out this reference to BPA CoP.

:okay:

There was signage by the pay and display maching but not at the entrance - should I therefore retain the points regarding adequate signage or is this again only an ANPR requirement?

Keep it in. This is supposed to alert you to the fact there are terms and conditions. One could argue anyone who paid must have seen them but let them do that if they want to.

If I edit your version with a few points of my own, would you mind casting an eye over it before I submit to POPLA?

Of course. As long as the main points remain and you never give clues as to the driver it should be good as keeper liabilty alone will win it.

M1

[TKMac]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

Brill. Thank you!

[TKMac]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

Here is my POPLA appeal. If anyone has anything further to add or any corrections, they will all be gratefully received!

Please note, in very small print on the back of the NTK they do address the points regarding their not knowing the driver and keeper liability returning to myself. I think this affects a couple of points in M1's draft regarding keeper liability, so have adjusted...

Many thanks

(Writing as Registered Keeper)

My reasons are as follows:

1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. Nor are they a genuine pre estimate of loss.
2. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms.

3. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.

4. AS Parking do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.

5. AS Parking have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

6. Keeper liability.


1. The charges are penalties.

The charges are represented as a failure to park in a single bay, the driver had paid and displayed, the car park was nearly empty, so there was no loss of income.

According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for an act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance".

£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for a small hourly sum. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. £100 is clearly a penalty.

The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious.
An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.


I require AS Parking to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. AS Parking cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.


It was held in Parking Eye v Cargius that Beavis does not apply in a paid car park and that the charge is a penalty.

I also refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.
The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


2. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that has been levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)
"Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."

The Regulations state that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the driver paid for the parking and the car park was at nearly empty (therefore no one was preventing from parking by the vehicle’s presence – photos taken by the driver at the time and passed to me are submitted as part of this appeal) then there is no loss.

Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
Finally, The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid a small sum. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

4. Contract with landowner - no locus standi

AS Parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that AS Parking has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract.

Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow AS Parking to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was “not valid evidence”. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.



I therefore require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons, as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between AS Parking and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013.


5. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.


The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”


For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there was not.


6. Keeper liability.


The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 allows the opportunity for parking companies liable for the actions of the driver but only if full compliance is achieved.

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle


4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met ...


6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8


8(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) 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;


(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;


(c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);


(d) if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—


(i) specified in the notice to keeper, and


(ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));


(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—


(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or


(ii) 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;


(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—


(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and


(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,


the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;


(h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;


(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).


(3) The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).


(4) The notice must be given by—


(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or


(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.


(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.


(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.


(7) When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.


(8) In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—


(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and


(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.


Sections E & F have not been fully complied with. This is also the case with other sections. The keeper is not invited to pay.


In addition, I wish to point out that in my position of Registered Keeper, in order to prevent further costs and time being incurred, I offered AS Parking the sum of £6 as settlement of their costs (applying to DVLA, postage etc.) in pursuing this contravention – the cheque was returned.


For the above reasons I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is cancelled.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN - not parked in single bay

Should do the trick.

M1