Can a PCN be ambiguous about the alleged contravention?

B789

Seeking a little bit of assistance on a PCN I'm assisting a friend with. The PCN was issued by Car Parking Partnership (CPP) and is an ANPR generated charge showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park with a duration of 1 hour 36 minutes.

The back of the PCN states the "Parking Charge Information" and says the car entered and departed at the times on the ANPR. It then waffles on about the signs and that it's a private car park etc.

The third paragraph states "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Car Parking Partnership (as the Creditor)."

Then there's the PoFA bit which tries but fails the required wording according to the Act.

My question for the keener-eyed members is, can you see anything in this PCN that definitively defines a contravention? Based on the only bit I can see, it is vague and ambiguous. They could add whatever they like in there and say "By either not doing this or doing that, blah, blah..." you are liable etc. Am I missing something?

Umkomaas

CPP are an arm of ParkingEye and the NtK is exactly the same as that of PE. I've never seen a POPLA assessor knock back that NtK as being non-compliant. Even splitting hairs over the wording is, IMHO, unlikely to convince a Judge either. 

B789

And what about "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted..."? That is ambiguous. In a "contract" there should be no ambiguity and PoFA requires that the PCN states when and HOW the parking contravention took place.

That is not going to be the only hook for any defence should the need arise. The signs at the entrance to the car park fail the BPA CoP:

https://goo.gl/maps/sKR24Rsq25KVc4Cj9

The little sign after the headroom clearance barrier is partially obscured by the barrier and foliage.

Umkomaas

And what about "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted..."? That is ambiguous. In a "contract" there should be no ambiguity and PoFA requires that the PCN states when and HOW the parking contravention took place.

As I said, the NtK is identical to that used by PE, with 'CPP' replacing 'PE' in the text. The either/or statement has been standard wording for years, with neither POPLA nor the judiciary (rightly or wrongly) raising its ambiguity as an issue. 

But, if you're going to fight this with/for a friend, that part of the NtK is, in my view, its Achilles heel. 

B789

We'll see how far my friend wants to go after that Achilles heel should it progress to that stage.

KeithP

By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted...

Surely that is just saying that the vehicle was parked for a longer time than the time that was paid for.

Not ambiguous, just two different ways of saying exactly the same thing...

1. the driver didn't pay enough money for the time parked, or

2. the driver stayed longer than the time allowed for the money paid.

fisherjim

Tend to agree with this^^^^^