Tweet
Hi I am new to the site.
I have been researching for a friend who has received 3 PCNs in the post. There seem to be multiple grounds to fight on - in relation to inadequate signage, 2 charges within 30 minutes and possibly whether a contract could exist which gives rise to right to charge. I am mainly seeking advice on the technical grounds including liability in contract and failures to comply with POFA.
Basic facts are these:
The 3 PCNs were all received in Aug 2019. These were the first notification of the charges. Nothing left on windscreen at time.
2 PCNs are for the same date - same place, less than half an hour apart, car not moved in that time. These 2 PCNs relate to a date in March 2019. "Issue date" of both PCNs is in August 2019. No notice left at time (on windscreen etc).
Third PCN related to a date in June 2019, also received in August 2019 via post. No previous notice.
Parking company is CPM.
Land parked on - there is a public road, which turns into a private road. Not clear where the change occurs and the single set of signs (NO PARKING, RESIDENTS ONLY(sign 1) PRIVATE ROAD, CUL DE SAC (sign 2) and a CPM Parking Conditions sign (sign 3) were all put together just before the road bent round at the entrance to a housing development - ie. further down the road from where friend parked. It is not a car park, there are no marked bays or indeed lines of any description. It's really just a section of road before the entrance to a housing development. CPM have referred to it as a Car Park in correspondence.
Friend challenged on basis that it was a public road and/or inadequate signage. After enquiries with Council, turns out the road becomes private almost immediately after the council road sign. Therefore it would appear that parking was on private land. The company has NOW - ie since the time in question, put up further signs at the start/entrance to the private area - much further back from where they were before.
The challenge was turned down and she now wishes to appeal to IAS, as directed by CPM. Clock is ticking.
I have offered to help as it appears that there are multiple lines of challenge - including the signage, the delay in any notification, two charges within 30 minutes timeframe etc
I am wondering whether there are also technical arguments.
1.The sign which was there appears to prohibit parking without a permit or on roadway. Friend is not a resident and does not have a permit. This seems very close to Masterton so is there a contractual right to seek the payment? Or should this be trespass? (See photos of signs.)
2. The PCNs she received don't say on face of them that they are intended to be a Notice to Keeper - yet it is clear that CPM has obtained details from the DVLA on that basis. It appears to be a mish-mash which does not comply with requirements for a NtK. It states that after 28 days the full amount will be recoverable from the driver, not the Keeper. It appears it is not a valid NtK. It can't be a Notice to Driver - as it was not given at the time (FOTA Schedule 6). Is that correct? As there was no other notice to driver, should any NtK have been within 14 days of the parking? It also does not state that the Creditor does not know the name of the driver - as per 9(2)(e). (See photo of one of PCNs. All are identical.)
Re the identification of the driver:
If this is not a valid NtK then would argue no liability for the Keeper. The keeper was not the driver although has not yet said this to CPM. Is it correct that there is no obligation to name the driver? Is there an obligation to say whether the keeper was or was not the driver? I do not believe that the driver has been identified in correspondence so far.
Advice very much appreciated
Many thanks
I have been researching for a friend who has received 3 PCNs in the post. There seem to be multiple grounds to fight on - in relation to inadequate signage, 2 charges within 30 minutes and possibly whether a contract could exist which gives rise to right to charge. I am mainly seeking advice on the technical grounds including liability in contract and failures to comply with POFA.
Basic facts are these:
The 3 PCNs were all received in Aug 2019. These were the first notification of the charges. Nothing left on windscreen at time.
2 PCNs are for the same date - same place, less than half an hour apart, car not moved in that time. These 2 PCNs relate to a date in March 2019. "Issue date" of both PCNs is in August 2019. No notice left at time (on windscreen etc).
Third PCN related to a date in June 2019, also received in August 2019 via post. No previous notice.
Parking company is CPM.
Land parked on - there is a public road, which turns into a private road. Not clear where the change occurs and the single set of signs (NO PARKING, RESIDENTS ONLY(sign 1) PRIVATE ROAD, CUL DE SAC (sign 2) and a CPM Parking Conditions sign (sign 3) were all put together just before the road bent round at the entrance to a housing development - ie. further down the road from where friend parked. It is not a car park, there are no marked bays or indeed lines of any description. It's really just a section of road before the entrance to a housing development. CPM have referred to it as a Car Park in correspondence.
Friend challenged on basis that it was a public road and/or inadequate signage. After enquiries with Council, turns out the road becomes private almost immediately after the council road sign. Therefore it would appear that parking was on private land. The company has NOW - ie since the time in question, put up further signs at the start/entrance to the private area - much further back from where they were before.
The challenge was turned down and she now wishes to appeal to IAS, as directed by CPM. Clock is ticking.
I have offered to help as it appears that there are multiple lines of challenge - including the signage, the delay in any notification, two charges within 30 minutes timeframe etc
I am wondering whether there are also technical arguments.
1.The sign which was there appears to prohibit parking without a permit or on roadway. Friend is not a resident and does not have a permit. This seems very close to Masterton so is there a contractual right to seek the payment? Or should this be trespass? (See photos of signs.)
2. The PCNs she received don't say on face of them that they are intended to be a Notice to Keeper - yet it is clear that CPM has obtained details from the DVLA on that basis. It appears to be a mish-mash which does not comply with requirements for a NtK. It states that after 28 days the full amount will be recoverable from the driver, not the Keeper. It appears it is not a valid NtK. It can't be a Notice to Driver - as it was not given at the time (FOTA Schedule 6). Is that correct? As there was no other notice to driver, should any NtK have been within 14 days of the parking? It also does not state that the Creditor does not know the name of the driver - as per 9(2)(e). (See photo of one of PCNs. All are identical.)
Re the identification of the driver:
If this is not a valid NtK then would argue no liability for the Keeper. The keeper was not the driver although has not yet said this to CPM. Is it correct that there is no obligation to name the driver? Is there an obligation to say whether the keeper was or was not the driver? I do not believe that the driver has been identified in correspondence so far.
Advice very much appreciated
Many thanks
Comment