NPE ltd Parking Charge Notice for 2 mins and 15 seconds when doing amazon delivery

Gr1pr

The keeper just states that they are exercising their legal right to name the actual driver under the legislation named POFA 2012 and are transferring any liability in law to that named driver, so the claimant must not contact them again except to acknowledge receipt of the declaration and the transfer of any actual liability 

They have no idea if the driver is actually liable in law, so no embellishing the keeper declaration , its not about the incident or actual legal liability, the back of the NTK PCN letter usually has the transfer declaration 

abercombine24

Much appreciated. I'll update the thread if I get a Letter Of/Before Claim or county court claim.

Coupon-mad

abercombine24 said:

Much appreciated. I'll update the thread if I get a Letter Of/Before Claim or county court claim.

What about the official research survey I linked?

Can you or the keeper do it please? 

abercombine24

Coupon-mad said:

abercombine24 said:

Much appreciated. I'll update the thread if I get a Letter Of/Before Claim or county court claim.

What about the official research survey I linked?

Can you or the keeper do it please? 

I'll have a go at the survey, hopefully it helps

abercombine24

Hi all,

Just as an update, after informing them that I was the driver I was sent the letter again, appealed at there website and of course lost, and now appealing at the IAS. I used the same appeal at IAS as in my reply earlier in this thread, and this is their response.

I'm wondering if there is something else I can respond with or go straight to arbitration? I am of course aware that I will probably lose this appeal too.

"The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/07/2024 09:28:51.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/04/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 10/04/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

The land on which this vehicle was parked is private land, where the Terms and Conditions apply. The Terms and Conditions are communicated to the motorist by way of prominent signage located throughout the site. All signage, as well as the overall site, has been independently audited and approved by our Accredited Trade Association (ATA), the International Parking Community (IPC). The signage states “No parking at any time.”, going on to state that “Breach of any contractual terms will result in the driver being liable for a Parking Charge of £100. £60 if paid within 14 days. By entering or remaining on this private land you agree to abide by all the contractual terms”.

Whilst we understand the nature of the appeal, however, the signage makes it clear that this is a no parking area. The appellant has stated that they were delivering and therefore not parked, however, the courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle remains occupied or vacant. In addition to this, the occupant of the vehicle was seen delivering off site and across the road, if they were delivering to site (Waterfront Heights), then a Parking Charge might not have been issued. A reasonable consideration period is provided to all motorists to allow sufficient time to read and consider the contractual terms. Should a motorist choose to reject this opportunity, however, by entering or remaining on this private land without reading the Terms and Conditions and walking off-site, then they are deemed to have accepted them immediately.

The vehicle was observed from 14:26:37, with the Parking Charge Notice being issued at 14:28:52. This constitutes a parking period of 2 minutes, and 15 seconds, during which the occupant of the vehicle made no attempt to read the signage before they walked off site. As the vehicle remained parked on-site after ample opportunity to consider the contractual terms had been provided, the driver has fully accepted the Terms and Conditions. Should the driver have wished to reject the contractual terms, they were required to immediately remove the vehicle from the site.

As we have demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in breach of the advertised Terms and conditions, after the driver had accepted these terms; we contend that this Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly."

LDast

You were advised that an IAS appeal is more likely than not going to be rejected. It means nothing in the scheme of things. Their "stopping is parking" comment only highlights how intellectually malnourished and mendacious they are.

Keep that response as ammo for court if it ever goes that far. A judge would likely give them a spanking for that male bovine excrement argument.

FOr now, ignore any reminders and debt collection letters as advised in the Newbies/FAQ thread and come back if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) that gives you a minimum of 30 days to pay. Anything giving you less than 30 days is a debt collector demand and can be safely ignored.

Coupon-mad

abercombine24 said:

Hi all,

Just as an update, after informing them that I was the driver I was sent the letter again, appealed at there website and of course lost, and now appealing at the IAS. I used the same appeal at IAS as in my reply earlier in this thread, and this is their response.

I'm wondering if there is something else I can respond with or go straight to arbitration? I am of course aware that I will probably lose this appeal too.

"The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/07/2024 09:28:51.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/04/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 10/04/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

The land on which this vehicle was parked is private land, where the Terms and Conditions apply. The Terms and Conditions are communicated to the motorist by way of prominent signage located throughout the site. All signage, as well as the overall site, has been independently audited and approved by our Accredited Trade Association (ATA), the International Parking Community (IPC). The signage states “No parking at any time.”, going on to state that “Breach of any contractual terms will result in the driver being liable for a Parking Charge of £100. £60 if paid within 14 days. By entering or remaining on this private land you agree to abide by all the contractual terms”.

Whilst we understand the nature of the appeal, however, the signage makes it clear that this is a no parking area. The appellant has stated that they were delivering and therefore not parked, however, the courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle remains occupied or vacant. In addition to this, the occupant of the vehicle was seen delivering off site and across the road, if they were delivering to site (Waterfront Heights), then a Parking Charge might not have been issued. A reasonable consideration period is provided to all motorists to allow sufficient time to read and consider the contractual terms. Should a motorist choose to reject this opportunity, however, by entering or remaining on this private land without reading the Terms and Conditions and walking off-site, then they are deemed to have accepted them immediately.

The vehicle was observed from 14:26:37, with the Parking Charge Notice being issued at 14:28:52. This constitutes a parking period of 2 minutes, and 15 seconds, during which the occupant of the vehicle made no attempt to read the signage before they walked off site. As the vehicle remained parked on-site after ample opportunity to consider the contractual terms had been provided, the driver has fully accepted the Terms and Conditions. Should the driver have wished to reject the contractual terms, they were required to immediately remove the vehicle from the site.

As we have demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in breach of the advertised Terms and conditions, after the driver had accepted these terms; we contend that this Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly."

And the IAS decision, please?