PCN issued on a private, unadopted road

jackRlnd

But that does not make "this and any PCN issued on this stretch of road invalid".

apologies ... I replied without thinking.

Am I correct in saying that whilst I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, if they cannot ascertain who the driver was then there's nothing left to pursue as I, the keeper, cannot be held liable due to the land not being 'relevant'

KeithP

jackRlnd wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that whilst I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, if they cannot ascertain who the driver was then there's nothing left to pursue as I, the keeper, cannot be held liable due to the land not being 'relevant'

Can I just re-phrase that, because there seems to be a big 'if' missing?

If the land is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA, then the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

But please don't think that that will stop a bullying PPC hounding the keeper.

jackRlnd

Can I just re-phrase that, because there seems to be a big 'if' missing?

If the land is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA, then the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

agreed, I am making assumptions as to the legal definition of the road based on my knowledge of its use as an effective public highway.

I just what I'm trying to understand is should they maintain their bullying/threatening tactics, do I wait till a court date to try and defend my case using this potential evidence, or do I mention it beforehand to nip it in the bud. I've read in the newb thread that the second IAS appeals is not worth doing

Coupon-mad

jackRlnd wrote: »

Either way, CouponMad's post seems to indicate that 12(1)c of the Housing Act 1985 suggests they are well within their rights to claim it is 'relevant' land

No, I don't think it is relevant land, as it's Council owned.

My post was showing you that they *could* operate this way on this site (rather than only being able to use the RTA and the TMA2004).

Not that it suddenly becomes 'relevant land'. Completely different thing.

This will get a fair hearing at court stage. No risk, no CCJ, nothing bad. Sit tight.

jackRlnd

This will get a fair hearing at court stage. No risk, no CCJ, nothing bad. Sit tight

so worst case scenario I get summoned to court, I lose, I pay the fine and maybe some extra costs?

Just trying to determine whether better to pay a known amount now than an unknown increased amount later. Apologies if this sounds like a scared mouse, but I prefer to minimise risk of unknown future events, why I get fixed rate mortgages!

Coupon-mad

No summons; it's not a prosecution, just a fair hearing to resolve a dispute.

We see wins 99% of the time, so no, the choice is not paying a smaller amount now, or paying a larger amount later (unlikely, given our stats).

The most likely outcome, by far, is you will pay nothing and will learn a bit about our legal system, and will have a life experience to tell friends about!

jackRlnd

The most likely outcome, by far, is you will pay nothing

this very much eases my mind.

Would you happen to know the upper end of costs in instances where the parking operator has won?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Say for a £100 PCN, the costs will be £50 for court fees.

Quentin

If you miss the opportunity to respond to a claim within the 14 days allowed from date of service then the claimant can apply for a judgement against you.


Should it come to that then you have the option of applying for a set aside - read up on this online (costs £255 in court fee)

jackRlnd

Quentin wrote: »

If you miss the opportunity to respond to a claim within the 14 days allowed from date of service then the claimant can apply for a judgement against you.


Should it come to that then you have the option of applying for a set aside - read up on this online (costs £255 in court fee)

thanks for that. Useful to know but if it looks like I'll miss the date of service, it's probably worthwhile just paying the £160 now.