Potential court costs

Redx

It's broadly correct , but cel will try and twist it , especially as a driver is responsible on all types of land

So they will try and invoke contract law and will aver that the keeper is probably the driver

nosferatu1001

It isnt broadly correct, sorry
The former is correct -they have no way of using POFA to make the keeper liable, because the portion of POFA that makes a keeper liable explicitly states it only applies to "relevant land", and land under stat. control is NEVER relevant and.
OP - POFA is a long piece of legislaiton that does multiple things. The ban on clamping is still in place, even on land with byelaws, as just one example

As to why your summary truly wasnt correc t- there is nothing *preventing* them from offering a contract to  do something the byelaws *allow*, but they want to charge you for doing. So, if the byelaws do not make it a crime (and byelaws are CRIMINAL law, so they do make things an offence) to park outside of a marked bay, they can offer a *contract* allowing you to park outside of a marked bay, but you agree to pay £100 for the privilege of doing so. What they cannot do is offer a contract to do something hte byelaws make an offence - this is because i cannot say "sure, you can murder John Smith, but only if you pay me £100" and expect you to be bound to any contract if you murder John Smith but dont pay me. A civil contract cannit permit something that is a criminal offence, and be valid. 

Redx

Thanks for that clarification , I did tell him it's complicated , same as this new case
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6105378/cel-quayside-car-park-wells-next-to-sea-statutory-control/p1

I have no doubt that CEL believe they gave a contract under contract law , for something , but the OP did muddy the waters when they claimed a penalty was issued

ktvillan

Again thanks - so it seems they do have a valid contract (or at least an argument to say they have) if parking on that land is not considered a criminal offence under the bye laws?  
The Falmouth bye laws have the following on parking - 
Unauthorised parking of vehicles 42. (1) Any person leaving a vehicle in a parking place on harbour premises shall display on that vehicle a ticket issued by the Commissioners authorising the parking of that vehicle during such time as may be specified on that ticket. (2) A person shall not leave a vehicle in a parking place on the harbour premises for longer than the time specified on the ticket issued in respect of that vehicle. 

CEL are not asking me to park without paying, so their contract is not asking me to break any bye laws just to comply with bye laws.  Not sure where that leaves me.

Half_way

If you have broken the bye-laws then the small claims track has no dissensus/jurisdiction in hearing the case, CEL are asking you to pay a bribe to avoid a prosecution

ktvillan

ah ok - thanks.  So it should be a criminal case, and that would have timed out by now?

Redx

ktvillan said:

ah ok - thanks.  So it should be a criminal case, and that would have timed out by now?

Only if it was a bylaws issue

Any alleged contract law failure has not timed out until 6 years has elapsed

2 different issues ! , In this thread you have referred to the PCN as a penalty (bylaws) and a parking charge notice for lack of payment at a pdt machine ( contractual failure to pay for parking , so contract law for a parking notice)

You have also inferred or told them who was driving , so that can be pursued regardless of who the keeper is ( and outing the driver chucks out any POFA keeper liabilities regardless of jurisdiction)

in this one the keeper admitted to being the driver and is now a court claim, so keep your eye on it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6009995/port-of-wells-popla-appeal-advice#latest

ktvillan

OK I did refer to the amount of the fine as the "original penalty" in the OP but made it clear in the same post and subsequently that it's a parking charge notice.  I'm not sure what else I can do to emphasise that point further.  I'm don't believe I have implied or admitted I was the driver,  I believe their appeal platform is duplicitous, designed to lure people into unwittingly submitting a form entitled "driver details" and should not be given any credence.  
Anyway the upshot is I'm still none the wiser as to whether I have any kind of legit defence on this matter so guess I will carry on reading and wait for the court notice.       

Redx

Now you appear to understand how complicated and underhand the matter is

Your last question above referred to the bylaw aspect where a magistrate would deal with it , under penalty rules due to bylaws , the point being that you keep switching between the two topics , hence my last answer ( I doubt that it is criminal to fail a bylaws issue)

So if the PPC are going to issue a Court claim within 6 years as seen in other threads , that threat is still valid , which they are doing with other people , so the outcome of those cases will be a pointer for your own

You want simple yes or no answers , but in court cases you can only go off results , like in football , so you are waiting for VAR to determine where an arm ends and a shoulder starts , now that you know the ball wasn't headed so should a goal stand or not

If you play a good game , or like in boxing , if you put up a good fight like Fury , the other side may throw the towel in , or it may go the distance and you win on points , or you win on a technicality because the opposition hit below the belt

The problem here is you want to know the result before the match starts , and yet there could have been one of two possible venues , but one venue has now been ruled out , the other is still a distinct possibility however, due to other people receiving their court papers

ktvillan

After much further reading I came across this snippet in the SAR response letter CEL sent with all the other documents they "intend to rely on":

 “We process your personal information in order to enforce the terms and conditions of parking and to claim the unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicles which contravene the terms and conditions of parking”.   

I take this to mean they are pursuing me as the keeper, not the driver, which, hopefully,  falls down because it's non-relevant land.  Since they've effectively said this is what they intend to rely on in court, does this preclude them from subsequently pursuing me as the driver?  Would the POFA provisions re the driver also not apply due to it being non-relevant land?