Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Jan 17, 12:59 PM
    • 21Posts
    • 5Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    P4 ticket for parking on kerb
    • #1
    • 16th Jan 17, 12:59 PM
    P4 ticket for parking on kerb 16th Jan 17 at 12:59 PM
    I received a ticket from P4 parking for parking on the kerb. I'm not sure whether I have grounds to appeal.... but am hoping that as well as the usual grounds used on templates that these may apply.

    1) There was no grace period given ... I was parked approx 6 mins, ticket shows no period of parking to and from time.

    2) Am unsure if it Is illegal to park on kerb which is not a public highway. The area in question is a estate owned by Bellway Homes and ticket issued by P4 not the council so surely this is private land and not a public highway and the parking on kerb rule may not apply.

    Am aware shouldn't have parked on kerb but was making mad dash to collect my son from the park where he had called and said he had fallen and was hurt... wasn't thinking just wanted park and see if he was ok. I literally walked from my car to a bench approx 15 metres from my car helped him to him feet and walked back to the car again. I have no idea how the attendant was so quick, I only managed to glimpse him as he scurried away ... but feel that £100 for 6 mins is ridiculously unfair.

    Is it worth appealing ?
    Do i do so using ground on templates only and try to skirt around the kerb issue ?
    Do i just suck it up and pay the £60 with the 14 day period ?

    TIA
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jan 17, 1:05 PM
    • 47,074 Posts
    • 60,440 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:05 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:05 PM
    Just use the template appeal from the NEWBIES thread around day 26 if it's a BPA member (I can't recall!). DO NOT say who was driving.

    No, these are NEVER worth paying and no type of (ordinary) parking is 'illegal'.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Jan 17, 1:19 PM
    • 6,583 Posts
    • 5,526 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:19 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:19 PM
    but feel that £100 for 6 mins is ridiculously unfair.

    It is, but you do not need to pay a penny, even if you lose your appeal to an ajudicator, unless a judge tells you so.

    How much would a Council want for this heinous crime I wonder.

    Is it worth appealing

    Absolutely
    Last edited by The Deep; 16-01-2017 at 1:24 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jan 17, 1:22 PM
    • 13,242 Posts
    • 20,713 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:22 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:22 PM
    You need to get photos of the PPC's signage on the estate. Do the signs mention anything about parking on the pavements, or is this a case of an overzealous parking chimp hoping to hit his bonus target for the month?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Jan 17, 1:37 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    • #5
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:37 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Jan 17, 1:37 PM
    There is one sign as you enter the road ( high up on a lamppost and about A4 in size) which mentions parking causing an obstruction, but nothing along the entire length of road which is approx 100m long.
    I guess the word " obstruction " is subjective. There was room for a pedestrian, wheelchair or pushchair to pass easily. I had simply mounted the kerb , not parked on the entire pavement !
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jan 17, 2:32 PM
    • 13,242 Posts
    • 20,713 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 16th Jan 17, 2:32 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Jan 17, 2:32 PM
    There is one sign as you enter the road ( high up on a lamppost and about A4 in size) which mentions parking causing an obstruction, but nothing along the entire length of road which is approx 100m long.
    I guess the word " obstruction " is subjective. There was room for a pedestrian, wheelchair or pushchair to pass easily. I had simply mounted the kerb , not parked on the entire pavement !
    Originally posted by Nadsbmw
    You'll need photos of the roadway to show there was no signage anywhere near to where you parked. This will be very helpful evidence for your eventual appeal to POPLA.

    Get your initial appeal off to P4P around day 26 as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 16th Jan 17, 3:29 PM
    • 2,489 Posts
    • 2,504 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #7
    • 16th Jan 17, 3:29 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Jan 17, 3:29 PM
    It is not illegal to park on the kerb ANYWHERE (except in London boroughs). It can be, though, illegal to drive on the pavement. (But you'd need to be observed in the act - your vehicle being stationary on the pavement is not evidence of driving).

    On private land it all depends on the terms and conditions of parking ... it is thus a contractual matter. Bear in mind that you cannot contract to do something which is forbidden.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Jan 17, 4:45 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    • #8
    • 16th Jan 17, 4:45 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Jan 17, 4:45 PM
    Unfortunately it was in London .......... Does this apply to private Roads / land ?
    it wasn't the council that issued the ticket it was P4 so does this mean the no parking on pavement law applies on private roads / land

    "Bear in mind that you cannot contract to do something which is forbidden. " Can you expand on this a little further ?
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 16th Jan 17, 4:58 PM
    • 2,159 Posts
    • 3,203 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #9
    • 16th Jan 17, 4:58 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Jan 17, 4:58 PM
    Unfortunately it was in London .......... Does this apply to private Roads / land ?
    it wasn't the council that issued the ticket it was P4 so does this mean the no parking on pavement law applies on private roads / land

    "Bear in mind that you cannot contract to do something which is forbidden. " Can you expand on this a little further ?
    Originally posted by Nadsbmw
    Forget about being in London, on private land the ppc/landowner make up their own rules, (not laws).

    If a contract forbids you to do something, they can't then charge you for doing it.
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Mar 17, 5:06 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    POPLA Appeal - Grace periods
    I'm just trying to hash together my Popla appeal against a P4 ticket for parking on the kerb and would like to know whether the grace period guidance applies to street parking or car parks only.
    The ticket issued is blank where it should show parking period from and parking period to.

    In their response to my appeal they state the ticket was issued correctly as parked on private land blah blah blah, but then goes on the state later that the highway code states that a car shouldn't park on the kerb or on a double yellow line - my question is can they cite highway code ? does the highway code apply to private land ?

    Their response also stated that as I appealed before the 28 day period then i must be the driver as if not I wouldn't t have known about the ticket. I have been led to believe that this is incorrect but not sure how to word or use this in my Popla appal.
    Some guidance would be appreciated.

    Thanks
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 16th Mar 17, 5:16 PM
    • 6,972 Posts
    • 6,989 Thanks
    pappa golf
    yellow lines have no legal standing on private land

    grace periods apply both to street parking and private parking , P4 are BPA therefore the BPA code of conduct states

    13 Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
    driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
    to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
    having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
    in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
    driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
    before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
    at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the
    private car park after the parking contract has ended, before
    you take enforcement action. If the location is one where
    parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.


    so there is a grace period upon entering the site , and a further onec on leaving
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Mar 17, 6:42 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    perfect thanks so much
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Mar 17, 7:45 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    P4 Popla appeal - 1st draft
    My original post a Popla appeal draft
    Would be grateful if someone can cast their eye over. Much appreciated.

    I received a ticket from P4 parking for parking on the kerb. I'm not sure whether I have grounds to appeal.... but am hoping that as well as the usual grounds used on templates that these may apply.

    1) There was no grace period given ... I was parked approx 6 mins, ticket shows no period of parking to and from time.

    2) Am unsure if it Is illegal to park on kerb which is not a public highway. The area in question is a estate owned by Bellway Homes and ticket issued by P4 not the council so surely this is private land and not a public highway and the parking on kerb rule may not apply.

    Am aware shouldn't have parked on kerb but was making mad dash to collect my son from the park where he had called and said he had fallen and was hurt... wasn't thinking just wanted park and see if he was ok. I literally walked from my car to a bench approx 15 metres from my car helped him to him feet and walked back to the car again. I have no idea how the attendant was so quick, I only managed to glimpse him as he scurried away ... but feel that £100 for 6 mins is ridiculously unfair.

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle MMMMM and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:


    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    5. No grace period given -


    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''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;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    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. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.


    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Paragraph 7 of the letter from P4 Parking ( attached ) clearly makes this assumption.
    Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    WEB LINK as per template

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    WEB LINK as per template

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    WEB LINK as per template

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    WEB LINK as per template

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    WEB LINK as per template

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    WEB LINK as per template

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up.

    GRACE PERIODS

    There was no grace period allowed. The ticket clearly has space to record “parking period from” and “parking period to”.
    These space have been left blank and therefore there is no evidence of a grace period being allowed.
    BPA code of practice give clear guidance on grace periods.


    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
    in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
    driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
    before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
    at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the
    private car park after the parking contract has ended, before
    you take enforcement action. If the location is one where
    parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 16th Mar 17, 7:47 PM
    • 9,880 Posts
    • 8,865 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    They are treating this parking as being outside their t&c by parking on a kerb, which I am assuming is part of a pavement or pedestrian walkway. If I am incorrect, please say so.

    There can be no grace period for such "unauthorised parking".

    Accepting that the area in question is private land, the Highway Code may be persuasive if it gets to court, as Rule 244 would apply to the inconvenience and potential danger whether the road was private or public.
    Rule 244

    You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
    • Nadsbmw
    • By Nadsbmw 16th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Nadsbmw
    Ah right so are you saying I have no right to appeal ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 1:06 AM
    • 47,074 Posts
    • 60,440 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It would have been quicker for you to merely put 'POPLA grace periods' into the search box and find one already written.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 17th Mar 17, 7:31 AM
    • 9,880 Posts
    • 8,865 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    The Highway Code suggests that pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians. If you parked on a pavement, then regardless of whether that was public or private road, then by the Code definition, you parked in a dangerous manner.

    There can be no grace period for any motorist parking dangerously.

    That, I suspect, will be the argument used by the PPC.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Mar 17, 8:01 AM
    • 13,242 Posts
    • 20,713 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The Highway Code suggests that pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians. If you parked on a pavement, then regardless of whether that was public or private road, then by the Code definition, you parked in a dangerous manner.

    There can be no grace period for any motorist parking dangerously.

    That, I suspect, will be the argument used by the PPC.
    Originally posted by Guys Dad
    Therefore something that is prohibited. One cannot be contracted not to do something. This would therefore be a penalty, not a contractual charge.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 9:56 AM
    • 47,074 Posts
    • 60,440 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No!! Not at all. What has happened since you appealed, have you got a POPLA code?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 9:57 AM
    • 47,074 Posts
    • 60,440 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Please can you ask a Board Guide (soolin or Crabman or Browntoa) to merge your 3 threads?

    We need to see this all on one thread and no new ones about the same PCN, please!!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,827Posts Today

8,008Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's twitter poll: It's been everywhere, so why not here. Which Hogwart's house should you've been in (Ive put key traits to help)...

  • Quick favour if uv graduated within around the last year. I could do with pic of a student loan statement (no personal info) inc interest

  • RT @ValeOfLevenCU: Why not sign up to @MartinSLewis https://t.co/kxMBedCNNw weekly email for free, impartial tips? #ThriftyThursday http?

  • Follow Martin