Tweet
Hello,
An elderly person in my neighbourhood went to pick up his daughter who is a community nurse for a few days in a row as they were deployed to a new location due to coronvavirus related duties. They did not realise that they would be penalised and have now got a notice.
Appreciate any support to fight this please as I offered to help. They are not really well off and cannot afford to pick up the fines on several tickets (others have not yet come in but we expect it to).
I have studied the format of the notice and it seems they have complied with POFA (but I am not sure) so would appreciate any guidance please.
PCN clearly states they are authorised to manage / claim but do not know details of the driver which seems to comply with POFA 2012 | Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 | 5 (1) (a) and (b)
PCN issued date: 8th day after the stated parking event which seems to comply with POFA 2012 | Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 | 5 (2)
Notice is given given on behalf of creditor stating they do not know who the keeper is as per POFA 2012 | Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 | 6
Appreciate your expertise please. Attached is the PCN recieved and a PDF ( Parking Fine and Sign.pdf ) that was sent to me showing details of where the vehicle was parked.
Summary of key details as below.
Could there be defence on the following?
Denning's 'red hand rule', the case law from Thornton, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html;
When the conditions sought to be attached all constitute, in Lord Dunedin's words "the sort of restriction .... that is usual", it may not be necessary for a defendant to prove more than that the intention to attach some conditions has been fairly brought to the notice of the other party. But at least where the particular condition relied on involves a sort of restriction that is not shown to be usual in that class of contract, a defendant must show that his intention to attach an unusual condition of that particular nature was fairly brought to the notice of the other party. How much is required as being, in the words of Lord Justice Mellish, "reasonably sufficient to give the plaintiff notice of the condition", depends upon the nature of the restrictive condition.
Something on the basis of Interfoto http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1987/6.html (requiring unusual or onerous terms to have especial notice in order to be enforceable)
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, that an unusual term in a parking contract (such as 'no leaving site (even for genuine customers crossing the road to visit an ATM)' or 'requirement to enter a correct registration number') or a punitive term (such as charging £100+ for mistyping a digit or parking with a wheel brushing a line) is not necessarily enforceable, particularly when buried in small print?
For Interfoto: legally we can use an objective test - how could the driver be expected to interpret "ROADWAYS" when it is not an official term and is open to interpretation or the usage of the term "YELLOW LINES", yellow lines where?
The driver's attention should be specifically drawn to any terms which impose liabilities over and above reasonable expectation.
An elderly person in my neighbourhood went to pick up his daughter who is a community nurse for a few days in a row as they were deployed to a new location due to coronvavirus related duties. They did not realise that they would be penalised and have now got a notice.
Appreciate any support to fight this please as I offered to help. They are not really well off and cannot afford to pick up the fines on several tickets (others have not yet come in but we expect it to).
I have studied the format of the notice and it seems they have complied with POFA (but I am not sure) so would appreciate any guidance please.
PCN clearly states they are authorised to manage / claim but do not know details of the driver which seems to comply with POFA 2012 | Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 | 5 (1) (a) and (b)
PCN issued date: 8th day after the stated parking event which seems to comply with POFA 2012 | Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 | 5 (2)
Notice is given given on behalf of creditor stating they do not know who the keeper is as per POFA 2012 | Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 | 6
Appreciate your expertise please. Attached is the PCN recieved and a PDF ( Parking Fine and Sign.pdf ) that was sent to me showing details of where the vehicle was parked.
Summary of key details as below.
- Stated period of stay: 27 minutes
- PCN addressed "To Whom it may concern"
- Reason for PCN: Vehicle not registered Or Exceeded Allowed Time
- UKPC rationale for claiming: POFA 2012 | Schedule 4 | Paragraph 9 (2) (f)
Could there be defence on the following?
Denning's 'red hand rule', the case law from Thornton, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html;
When the conditions sought to be attached all constitute, in Lord Dunedin's words "the sort of restriction .... that is usual", it may not be necessary for a defendant to prove more than that the intention to attach some conditions has been fairly brought to the notice of the other party. But at least where the particular condition relied on involves a sort of restriction that is not shown to be usual in that class of contract, a defendant must show that his intention to attach an unusual condition of that particular nature was fairly brought to the notice of the other party. How much is required as being, in the words of Lord Justice Mellish, "reasonably sufficient to give the plaintiff notice of the condition", depends upon the nature of the restrictive condition.
Something on the basis of Interfoto http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1987/6.html (requiring unusual or onerous terms to have especial notice in order to be enforceable)
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, that an unusual term in a parking contract (such as 'no leaving site (even for genuine customers crossing the road to visit an ATM)' or 'requirement to enter a correct registration number') or a punitive term (such as charging £100+ for mistyping a digit or parking with a wheel brushing a line) is not necessarily enforceable, particularly when buried in small print?
For Interfoto: legally we can use an objective test - how could the driver be expected to interpret "ROADWAYS" when it is not an official term and is open to interpretation or the usage of the term "YELLOW LINES", yellow lines where?
The driver's attention should be specifically drawn to any terms which impose liabilities over and above reasonable expectation.
Attached Files
