'Privacy Notice' parking contravention note attached to vehicle, whilst reversing out of space?!

fatalist54

Hi everyone,

I feel like I've entered a new realm of nonsensical parking tickets. 

This afternoon I'd parked in a drop off/collection space, waiting to pick up a coffee from Grindsmith in Salford Quays. 

As I was getting to my vehicle, I spotted a 'parking inspector' taking pictures of my vehicle (he'd spotted me unlocking the car and preparing to move it) and obviously told him I was leaving. He continued to take pictures of my vehicle and place the 'Privacy Notice PCN look-a-like' to my windscreen, even though the car was in FULL reversing motion. He didn't even have time to pull the sticky back off the parking ticket to affix it to the windscreen, and this is visible in the picture below.

After moving my vehicle and obviously being shocked at the fact that he'd continued to issue a ticket with me in the vehicle - I pulled over and asked him why he thought it was both legal and sensible to affix a ticket to my vehicle whilst it was in motion and he very confidently said he was very much allowed to continue issuing the ticket even though I was A ) in the car and B ) reversing it! 

Have a look what was jankily dropped on my windshield. 

Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, 

Fruitcake

The PoFA says a NTD must be handed to the driver or fixed to the windscreen whilst the vehicle is stationary.

I was under the impression that these privacy notices were prohibited by the DVLA.

The keeper should wait for the NTK to arrive. That "should" happen between 28 and 56 days where a NTD has been left. I suspect it will actually arrive by day 14. Note that the date of the alleged event is day zero.

The keeper should complain to the landowner, the DVLA, and their MP.
When the NTK arrives, the keeper should complain to the PPC, then the IPC. Expect either nothing, or bucketful of whitewash to arrive in return.

Appeal if a landowner cancellation is not forthcoming using the template in blue text from the NEWBIES. Send it unaltered from the keeper, plus add a one liner that the NTK was not PoFA compliant.

Do you have dashcam video of the attack on the keeper's car, or any witnesses?

You could report this to the police as well as it was an extremely dangerous and stupid thing to do, and may well have been a criminal offence that endangered lives.

fatalist54

Hi all,

Over 3 years ago I'd created this post (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6338772/privacy-notice-parking-contravention-note-attached-to-vehicle-whilst-reversing-out-of-space#latest) regarding to my next steps on a 'privacy notice' that was jankily planted on my vehicle as I was reversing out of an area in Media City, Manchester.

To avoid wasting too much precious time, as per Fruitcake's advice on the post above - I did indeed complain to the landowner via email with no response. From memory I'd received no NTK or anything of the sorts afterwards (although this was now over 3 years ago...)

April 4th this year I'd received a Claim Form from VCS - AoS acknowleged on the 16th April - therefore I have till 7th of May to complete if I've done the maths right there? Yes, I'm playing it tight with time but I have been away for an extended period of time and now am playing catch up!

Details of the claim are as follows:

THE CLAIM IS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR BREACHING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET ON PRIVATE LAND. THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE, [XXXXXXX], WAS IDENTIFIED IN MEDIA CITY ON THE XX/02/2022 IN BREACH OF THE ADVERTISED TERMS AND CONDITIONS; NAMELY PARKED IN A RESTRICTED / PROHIBITED AREA AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES THE DEFENDANT WAS THE REGISTERED KEEPER AND/OR DRIVER. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WERE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT THE ENTRANCE AND INPROMINENT LOCATIONS. THE SIGN WAS THE OFFER AND THE ACT OF ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER HEREBY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT BY CONDUCT. THE SIGNS SPECIFICALLY DETAIL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY, NAMELY A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT SEEKS THE RECOVERY OF THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE, CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND INTEREST.

Amount claimed £170 + legal costs of £50 + court fee of £35.

No SAR as of yet but have requested at the end of April. 

I am in the process of drafting my first Defence and will submit shortly but advice would be appreciated on how I'd best approach this. 

Thank you.

Gr1pr

For a start,  if you have a previous thread about it,  your latest query should have been posted in the existing thread, not starting a new thread 

So please report this thread using the red report button to the admin and ask them to merge it into your previou thread 

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

fatalist54

Gr1pr said:

So please report this thread using the red report button to the admin and ask them to merge it into your previou thread 

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

Done and done - thank you for the tip.

The issue date was the 4th April. So I'm assuming I have till the 7th May to submit the Defence? Is the bank holiday taken into consideration?

Gr1pr

4pm on Wednesday 7th May is deadline,  the bank Holiday today doesn't change anything 

fatalist54

PART 1:

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts are known to the Defendant:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

2. The Particulars of Claim refer to ‘A Breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. [XX/02/2022]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state whether the Defendant is being pursued under the POFA 2012 as the registered keeper (they use template wording 'keeper and/or driver' yet the law and liability chain and defence needed for those polar opposite positions, would be entirely different). The Particulars also fail to explain the locus standi of the Claimant, who are not the landowner yet also fail to state why they, as a mere agent (if indeed they are) of a landowner principal, are bringing this claim. Further, this is a money-claim and the Particulars state no sum of money, nor even break the total claim down, nor even state the sum of the alleged parking charge.

3.1. On the date of the alleged contravention, the Defendant’s vehicle was briefly parked in an open space adjacent to a coffee shop - an area frequently used by delivery vehicles. The vehicle was not obstructing access, nor causing any inconvenience.

3.2. As of 5 May 2025, there is no visible signage indicating that the Defendant's vehicle was parked in a prohibited or restricted area. The Claimant has not yet provided any photographic or documentary evidence showing such signage existed on the date in question.

3.3. The Particulars merely state, “No parking in restricted areas, double yellow lines, hatched areas, roadways, pedestrian walkways, entrances or exits”, without defining what constitutes a restricted area at this site. The Defendant denies any breach of clear or binding contractual terms, whether express or implied.

4. Invalid service of PCN - Vehicle in Motion. Upon returning to the vehicle, the Defendant observed a parking operative photographing the car. The Defendant entered the vehicle and began reversing with the clear intention of leaving the site.

4.1. Despite this, the operative proceeded to approach the vehicle and attempted to serve a 'Privacy Notice'-style document (resembling a PCN) by placing it on the windscreen. At the time this occurred, the vehicle was visibly in full reversing motion, with the engine on and the Defendant clearly in the driver's seat. The operative did not have time to peel off the adhesive backing, as visible in the Claimant’s own evidence.

4.2. The operative later stated to the Defendant that it was permissible to serve a notice while the vehicle was moving and the driver present. This is a misstatement of the legal position.

4.3. Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2) of PoFA 2012, a Notice to Driver must be either handed to the driver or affixed to the vehicle while stationary. This requirement was not met. No valid Notice to Driver was served. As such, if the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability under PoFA, that chain is broken, and they have no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as registered keeper.

5. The Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time. The Defendant has submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Claimant, requesting all personal data held, including photographs, operative notes, and documents relating to the alleged parking incident. As of the date of submitting this Defence, the Defendant has not received a response.

6. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite indisputably knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that admin costs inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

7.This finding is underpinned by Government intervention and regulation. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice.

8. Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

9.The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis; essentially Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically to share inflated sums of money.

11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

12. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.

13. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts.

14. This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made. Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. The learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.

POFA and CRA Breaches

15. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'). If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance.

16. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA'). The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

17. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. In the case of a 'PCN' or ‘Privacy Notice’ in this case - this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices (upon collecting evidence for this case over 3 years after the supposed contravention had occurred), pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith.

fatalist54

As per the request of Coupon-mad, I'm continuing on this thread as opposed to the new one I'd created. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81435263#Comment_81435263

Details of the claim are as follows:

THE CLAIM IS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR BREACHING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET ON PRIVATE LAND. THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE, [XXXXXXX], WAS IDENTIFIED IN MEDIA CITY ON THE XX/02/2022 IN BREACH OF THE ADVERTISED TERMS AND CONDITIONS; NAMELY PARKED IN A RESTRICTED / PROHIBITED AREA AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES THE DEFENDANT WAS THE REGISTERED KEEPER AND/OR DRIVER. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WERE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT THE ENTRANCE AND INPROMINENT LOCATIONS. THE SIGN WAS THE OFFER AND THE ACT OF ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER HEREBY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT BY CONDUCT. THE SIGNS SPECIFICALLY DETAIL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY, NAMELY A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT SEEKS THE RECOVERY OF THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE, CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND INTEREST.

My main points for my Defence are that the vehicle was in motion when the PCN (or Privacy Notice) was issued and this is a breach of PoFA under all accounts. I know the action the vehicle being in motion would probably be difficult to prove with no dashcam footage or CCTV footage - but I'm still waiting on the SAR as to see what VCS actually have to work with.

Thanks for your time.

Coupon-mad

I can tell from just reading the start that you haven't used the current Template Defence.

fatalist54

Hi all, quick update.

Just had the SAR come through from VCS (albeit after I'd already submit my defence) - the information they've provided contains my old address from over 7 years ago, which I'd assume they've been sending corresponedance to, and one image of the vehicle quite clearly in a reversing motion.

Just checked MCOL this morning and apparently the DQ was sent on the 16th May.

Next steps according to the sticky are to complete the DQ once received and send to the CNBC and CC the @info address for the Claimant.

Umkomaas

fatalist54 said:

Hi all, quick update.

Just had the SAR come through from VCS (albeit after I'd already submit my defence) - the information they've provided contains my old address from over 7 years ago, which I'd assume they've been sending corresponedance to, and one image of the vehicle quite clearly in a reversing motion.

Just checked MCOL this morning and apparently the DQ was sent on the 16th May.

Next steps according to the sticky are to complete the DQ once received and send to the CNBC and CC the @info address for the Claimant.

Is your V5C (logbook) up to date with your current address?  Most PCNs going to an old address are as a result of a failure to update.