Car Park Management PCN received

[Guest]

Hi - I did see an old thread on this website that related to this. I have received 3 PCN after using a carpark in Maidenhead. Having recently left a company as they were transitioning location It was suggested to me by an employee that I could use their new allocation of carparking spaces as they were rarely fully utilised. I did so and then received 3 PCNs in short succession from CPM. I was unaware that this car park was being managed by them and had not seen their signs which were not illuminated and not obvious. I have appealed on the basis of the facts above but told that as my car had not been registered with the said company I now have 14 days to pay 3 x £60 PCN charges. If I had known that charges would have applied I would never had parked there. Do I have grounds for further appeal?

[ostell]

If the signs were not visible then there was no contact was created.* Photo of the signs would help.

[Matt S]

If the signs were not visible then there was no contact was created. Photo of the signs would help.

Here is a photo the sign is at 90' to you as you drive in the only entrance and above Heras temporary fencing which is usually 2M in height so probably nearer to 7' high so not visible as you drive in and not as you walk out unless you happen to be looking up and to your left.
IMG_0666.jpg

[Hamilton]

I'm assuming you received the PCN as you are the registered keeper of the vehicle; that being the case they are required to send you a Notice to Owner; if the phrase Notice to Owner does not appear on the PCN they cannot pursue you as the owner of the vehicle. Do not under any circumstances admit to being the driver at the time.*

[ostell]

That is incorrect information. Please read Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and tell me where it mentions Notice to Owner.* The Owner may not be the registered keeper nor keeper.* 3 seperate legal identities

OP, can you post up redacted copy of one of the PCNs. Leave dates.

There is also a case that the sign, even if visible, is forbidding in that it says "Resident Parking Only" without making an offer of a contract to oark for non residents. To claim that a contract was created for a an action specifically forbidden is perverse

And yes edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver ......." etc.

[Hamilton]

That is incorrect information. Please read Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and tell me where it mentions Notice to Owner. The Owner may not be the registered keeper nor keeper. 3 seperate legal identities

OP, can you post up redacted copy of one of the PCNs. Leave dates.

There is also a case that the sign, even if visible, is forbidding in that it says "Resident Parking Only" without making an offer of a contract to oark for non residents. To claim that a contract was created for a an action specifically forbidden is perverse

And yes edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver ......." etc.

Ostell you are correct, I am confusing the terminology from the Protection of Freedoms Act and the Road Traffic Act 1991. However, my point stands, they have to send a Notice to Keeper to legally transfer responsibility for the charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle. A Notice to Keeper must be unequivocal as to its nature and its purpose so as not to mislead or unfairly disadvantage the recipient, calling it a PCN does not meet this requirement.
*

[ostell]

NTK is often referred to as a PCN.* Indeed there is no requirement to actually* call it a* Notice to Keeper.* The act states "A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper....... "* there is no specified requirement to call it a NTK.


*

[Hamilton]

NTK is often referred to as a PCN. Indeed there is no requirement to actually call it a Notice to Keeper. The act states "A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper....... " there is no specified requirement to call it a NTK.

I have successfully challenged parking charges based on the notice being a PCN rather than a Notice to Keeper, and whether this works is more important that whether there is a legal requirement (implied or otherwise) in the legislation. From my experience the wording on the notice is important as it the title of the document.

If someone did not want to try this method another successful technique is to challenge the company’s right as the “creditor”. Asking for proof they are the legal creditor by supplying a valid entry in the Land Registry or a copy of the contract with the legal owner of the land, results in the cancellation of the charge in every instance that I know it has been used. Parking enforcement companies vary in their professionalism and their knowledge of the law, but the one thing they have in common is a greedy desire to make as much money as possible with the least work necessary, throwing up an obstacle to collection usually makes the effort involved in collection not worth the reward.

I also like to turn the tables on them and invoice them for letters they send and replies I return. I do this by creating a contract in the same way they create a contract to park, simply sending them a letter offering a service whereby they are able to send letters addressed me and I will respond, with a charge being incurred for the letters received and my responses. I find it highly amusing when their legal department write to me explaining why simply reading a notice and responding to it does not create a contract, when that’s exactly what they rely on to run their entire business.
I have to say, I have never received payment from this, but that’s probably because I never take them to the small claims court. I do however seem to be on some sort of black list as I haven’t received a PCN for over 4 years.
*

[ostell]

Have you seen my post count?* Most of it is about parking.* Even larger count on Pepipoo.* Case law has decided reading a sign creates a contract, accepted by the action of parking.* You reject by not parking.* Offering a contract that includes a charge for each letter was rejected by the parking company.

If you want to continue try the flame puit.

Back to the subject in hand.

The sign is a forbidding signs offering "resident parking only".* To claim that a contract to park was offered to non residents is perverse as it is contrary to what the sign says.* Here's some text I have about prohibiting signs, it's about permits but the principle is the same:


The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Waiting for the PCN

*

[Matt S]

Have you seen my post count? Most of it is about parking. Even larger count on Pepipoo. Case law has decided reading a sign creates a contract, accepted by the action of parking. You reject by not parking. Offering a contract that includes a charge for each letter was rejected by the parking company.

If you want to continue try the flame puit.

Back to the subject in hand.

The sign is a forbidding signs offering "resident parking only". To claim that a contract to park was offered to non residents is perverse as it is contrary to what the sign says. Here's some text I have about prohibiting signs, it's about permits but the principle is the same:


The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Waiting for the PCN

Will redact PCN overnight Ostell, and thanks to both of you for taking the time to assist. I will also give the essence of my first appeal*

[ostell]

The sign should also be in the line of sight of the driver.* Parallel to the road and at a height makes the sign invisible to approaching drivers.

[Matt S]

Ostell - Here is a redacted copy of one of the original PCN /* My appeal and the response to that for one of the three PCN's.

I would like to know if I have any genuine grounds for further appeal as £300 is a lot of money when unemployed with 4 children. However, my concern is that I do not want to lose the opportunity of paying the reduced amount of £180 if paid by 9th April 2020.
Original PCN page 1.pdf Original PCN page 2.pdf My Appeal to PCN.pdf Response to appeal page 1.pdf Response to appeal page 2.pdf

[ostell]

Have you identified the driver, Yes or No? Edit: Yes you did, shame

The PCN fails to comply with POFA in so many ways that they could not have been able to hold the keeper liable.

Howsoever what's done is done.* Don't appeal to the IAS, they will reject.* Wait for the Letter before claim.* You will go to court with signage not easily read, Prohibiting sign therefore no contract created

[Matt S]

Have you identified the driver, Yes or No? Edit: Yes you did, shame

The PCN fails to comply with POFA in so many ways that they could not have been able to hold the keeper liable.

Howsoever what's done is done. Don't appeal to the IAS, they will reject. Wait for the Letter before claim. You will go to court with signage not easily read, Prohibiting sign therefore no contract created

>>>>>>>
Thanks Ostell - Likelihood that they would take this to court and that they would be successful?* I'd probably need to see 90%+ to make me feel comfortable for the stress and hassle.

What costs might I be exposed to if this went to court? £300+ court fees? Would this impact me in any other way I have never been to court and have an unblemished record and 100% credit rating etc. If the alternative is just pay the £180 and chalk it down to experience then I will but the fact remains I was not aware of doing anything wrong so its a principal thing too.

[ostell]

Think in terms of about £200 in court.* Legal costs are very limited in small claims.* You will only get a mark on your credit record IF they take it to court and IF you lose and IF you don't pay within 30 days.