HX Car Park Management Ltd at Tesco Petrol Station, Willow Brook Centre, Bradley Stoke

deficit

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I have actually just received another NTK from these clowns, for a different set of circumstances at a different location at the same site, so here we go again!

Coupon-mad

I recommend you avoid private land, as I do except for Supermarkets.  Always read signs. Don't drive in at all is the best advice.

JoshWW1111

deficit said:

PCN cancelled by IAS.  Thanks all for your help.  This was the winning text but IAS do not tell you which point(s) were the winning ones, the just say its cancelled and it will no longer be pursued.

A site visit was conducted to determine whether there was in fact adequate signage in place.  A copy of the relevant sign is attached; it addresses permit holders only.  A basic binding contract in UK law must comprise some key elements, including: offer, acceptance and consideration.  The sign makes no offer of parking to the non-permit-holder, it is forbidding, therefore there can have also have been no consideration and no acceptance of terms.  The signage at the site therefore fails to create any form of contract with the operator and therefore no possibility of a breach.

I assume that HX intend to rely on Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (POFA) as grounds to pursue the keeper for this alleged debt and that the PCN is intended to be relied upon by HX as a Notice To Keeper (NTK).  POFA paragraph 9 (2) (f) states that "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid".  As I have set out in this appeal, the applicable conditions have not been met, therefore HX have no right to recover any alleged debt from the keeper.

Their notice fails to comply with POFA and it is now too late for them to deliver a POFA-compliant NTK because  the "relevant period" as defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) has expired.  Specifically (and without limitation):

1. The NTK does not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, it simply states "the period of parking preceding the incident time".  A period has both a start and an end time.  This NTK therefore does not satisfy POFA paragraph 9(2)(a).

2. The NTK does not contain the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) stating that their right to recover from the keeper is conditional upon all the applicable conditions under POFA being met.

3. Even if the alleged debt were genuinely due, which it is not, HX have no right to add costs of debt recovery or legal claims.  POFA paragraph 4 (5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK, in this case £100.

Furthermore, no liability may be transferred to the keeper under POFA if the driver is not themselves liable.  A site visit was conducted to determine whether there was adequate signage in place.  A copy of the relevant sign is attached.  It forbids all parking except by permit holders. Courts have repeatedly held that where signage forbids parking (whether at all or without a permit), whilst the landowner might have a claim for unliquidated damages for trespass against the driver, the car park operator has no contractual claim against the driver for the sum specified on the signage. See PCM-UK v Bull et al (2016) and UK Parking Control v Masterson (2016). In both cases it was held that forbidding signage cannot provide the basis for a contractual claim by the parking operator for the amount specified on the sign; any financial liability of the driver being limited to a claim by the landowner, not the parking operator, for damages for any loss actually suffered by the landowner as a result of the trespass.

In the alternative, if HX do not intend to rely on POFA, then HX have no legal grounds to pursue the driver or the keeper of the vehicle for the alleged debt at all.  All of the above is supported by Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Ian Mark Edward (2023).

Given the legal contraventions above, it is reasonable to say that either HX do not comply with IPC CoP v8 paragraphs 25.1 or 27.1.  They are either unaware of their legal obligations or don't care about them; either way, they fail to implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their business.  

The tone of the correspondence received from HX to date has been arrogant, threatening and, due to the false claims made therein, tantamount to harassment, contravening IPC CoP v8 paragraph 27.1.

Whilst I appreciate the need for parking control on private land, I do not appreciate the apparent predatory business tactics of HX whereby it is insisted that people going about their lawful daily business have entered into some kind of non-existent contract.  Nor do I appreciate harassing and distressing letters, making unwarranted veiled threats towards my credit rating.

Given the above points, I expect IAS to inform HX that this PCN is to be cancelled with no further action.

Hi,
I have received a PCN from the same company for parking in the exact same place as you. 
Its the first PCN, dated 13 May, for a 10 May incident.

I'm hoping to follow your steps to get the same outcome. It'll be word for word the same.

You've pasted a few versions in this thread - could you please help me out and tell me which one you ended up sending to HX initially?  That would be great - it'll save me so much time

Appreciate you

JoshWW1111

@deficit do you have any advice for me? The exact same situation?