ParkingEye v Bowen

[bananas22]

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; or

(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.


No ambiguity there, imho.

I agree, there is no ambiguity in the legislation, but please - tell me what it is I have misconceived because I honestly do not understand what your point is.

[des8]

Tend to agree with bananas22 that the NTK wording is misconceived.

No notice given to driver or affixed to car.. agreed

BUT that notice says no PCN affixed at time of issue, and adds' the period of parking refers to the period immediately preceding the issuance of that notice.
So where is that notice?
It cannot refer to the NTK which was issued 4 days after the parking event!

[des8]

Tend to agree with bananas22 that the NTK wording is misconceived.

No notice given to driver or affixed to car.. agreed

BUT that notice says no PCN affixed at time of issue, and adds' the period of parking refers to the period immediately preceding the issuance of that notice.
So where is that notice?
It cannot refer to the NTK which was issued 4 days after the parking event!

PS probably won't make a difference to a court case as judge will say "you know what they meant!"

[bananas22]

PS probably won't make a difference to a court case as judge will say "you know what they meant!"

But what did they mean ?

[des8]

Who knows?........ ask the judge

[bananas22]

Have to pop out but without checking I believe the ATA Code requires them to state whether an NTD has been issued, the inference is that it has, which raises 2 issues - 1) It hasn't and 2) the NTK can't be issued within 28 days of the NTD

[charitynjw]

Tend to agree with bananas22 that the NTK wording is misconceived.

No notice given to driver or affixed to car.. agreed


BUT that notice says no PCN affixed at time of issue
No notice was affixed,
and adds' the period of parking refers to the period immediately preceding the issuance of that notice.
I've always had reservations about whether that phrasing is ok. Can the keeper then nominate how long that period is? If so, it's challengeable under a 'reasonable consideration period'.
So where is that notice?
Refers to itself (ie the NtK).
It cannot refer to the NTK which was issued 4 days after the parking event!

I agree that it is clumsily drafted, but I wouldn't want to be going to court with just that as an argument/defence.

[charitynjw]

Who knows?........ ask the judge

I've seen some dodgy decisions.....the old 'judges' lottery'.

We also seem to have drifted a long way from the 'Bowen' case.

[des8]

Defence surely is that the NTK does not comply with PoFA on at least two counts.
1) "period immediately preceding" does not properly state a period
2) as no notice was issued, there can be no period preceding the notice

Not that IAS will take notice of that!

[charitynjw]

Defence surely is that the NTK does not comply with PoFA on at least two counts.
1) "period immediately preceding" does not properly state a period
2) as no notice was issued, there can be no period preceding the notice

Not that IAS will take notice of that!

Not that IAS will take notice of that!

[bananas22]

Defence surely is that the NTK does not comply with PoFA on at least two counts.
1) "period immediately preceding" does not properly state a period
2) as no notice was issued, there can be no period preceding the notice

Not that IAS will take notice of that!

Or an NTD was issued, as is the only credible interpretation of the statement on the NTK, and therefore the PCN was not sent within the relevant period and consequently cannot be relied upon as an NTK.
I don't know if appearing has a legal definition or test but it would seem to me that those drafting legislation are not casual with their words and that this word introduces scope for error on the part of the agent of NPC in identifying the driver. Who am I to say that an NTD was not given to someone who appeared to be the driver but in fact was not and just tossed into a hedge ?

[charitynjw]

Or an NTD was issued, as is the only credible interpretation of the statement on the NTK, and therefore the PCN was not sent within the relevant period and consequently cannot be relied upon as an NTK.
I don't know if appearing has a legal definition or test but it would seem to me that those drafting legislation are not casual with their words and that this word introduces scope for error on the part of the agent of NPC in identifying the driver. Who am I to say that an NTD was not given to someone who appeared to be the driver but in fact was not and just tossed into a hedge ?

Why speculate?
You can obtain all of the evidence from the parking company.

[bananas22]

Why speculate?
You can obtain all of the evidence from the parking company.

There is an answer to that but for the moment a public forum isn't the place to give it. Thanks for contribution. I will update at a later date.

[bananas22]

Update. There are 2 companies involved - one takes the photographs the other issues the NTKs - I have sent data requests to both. The first replied it didn't issue penalty notices (I never suggested that it did) and that it didn't hold any information about me or my car. When I sent photographic evidence of their operatives photographing cars all contact ended. The second company simply didn't respond to my request and I have heard nothing since.
The period for response has long since expired so I now have to decide whether to pursue this with the ICO or let sleeping dogs lie. I am concerned not just about their yet still pursuing the charge but also if they are happy to flout the law so blatantly then what else might they be doing with my personal data ?

[charitynjw]

Update. There are 2 companies involved - one takes the photographs the other issues the NTKs - I have sent data requests to both. The first replied it didn't issue penalty notices (I never suggested that it did) and that it didn't hold any information about me or my car. When I sent photographic evidence of their operatives photographing cars all contact ended. The second company simply didn't respond to my request and I have heard nothing since.
The period for response has long since expired so I now have to decide whether to pursue this with the ICO or let sleeping dogs lie. I am concerned not just about their yet still pursuing the charge but also if they are happy to flout the law so blatantly then what else might they be doing with my personal data ?

For 'private' PCNs (as opposed to penalty Notices), parking companies have up to 6 years in which to issue proceedings in E/W (5 in Scotland). Many people have fallen foul in thinking that the issue was dead, only to be hit with a letter before claim (or in some instances, straight to the issue of a county court claim) many years after having binned all their paperwork on the matter.