PCN Issued 70 seconds after parking outside a marked bay

littlebluefella77

I dropped my son off at a small retail outlet, using what is effectively a layby in front of the shops, within a small car park.
The layby itself is unmarked, with no signage and had room for approximately 3 vehicles.

There is a sign to the left of entry to the car park that is small font and challenging to read whist driving.
This sign states terms and conditions apply and to refer to the signage with the car park itself.

The terms and conditions are many and take approximately 3-4 minutes to read in full.

The PCN has an online portal with photos I can review.  These show my vehicle first recorded at 10.53:23 with the PCN registering at 10.54.33 and the final photo showing my vehicle at 10.55:47.

I have Ring camera footage showing my leaving my property at 10.45:35.  It is at best an 8 minute drive to this location, so the timestamp on the PCN is the absolute earliest I can have arrived.

I also have footage showing my arrival back home at 11.06:02

This offence occurred on 16th May.  The Notice to Keeper was posted on the 4th June.

They appear to have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, SCHEDULE 4, paragraph 9, sections 4 and 5, by issuing the Notice to Keeper 18 days after the offense (+one day).

My questions therefore are:
1.  Due to the 18 day gap between offense and sending the notice, can I effectively inform them that they can no longer transfer liability to the owner of the vehicle and that I have no legal duty to name the driver and thus, request end of any contact on this matter?

2.  That no contract can have been entered into as insufficient time was permitted to review the terms and conditions (PCN issued after 70 seconds versus 3-4 minutes to read the signage)?

3.  Would the £100 fine be deemed as both unfair and unreasonable value of loss to the landowner given the timeframe of 70 seconds?

Gr1pr

No offence occurred, but they are alleging breach of contract, so a PCN, an invoice, arrived in the post, its not a fine either 

POFA 2012 is not mandatory,cos they can choose to not bother with POFA 2012

Lack of POFA could well mean that there is no keeper liability, nothing to do with ownership 

There is no legal obligation to name the driver 

1) doing that won't stop them , they have 6 years to pursue this PCN in court 

2)  possibly

3) no, generally speaking the level of charge levied was lost in the Supreme court 9 years ago, the Beavis case, as was NO LOSS 

You have not named the parking company yet, or the location either, plus no pictures, but you should have studied the relevant code of practice, so please do so

Umkomaas

Is this National Parking Enforcement in Norwich? Sounds like their MO.

LDast

littlebluefella77 said:

They appear to have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, SCHEDULE 4, paragraph 9, sections 4 and 5, by issuing the Notice to Keeper 18 days after the offense (+one day).

Without seeng the NtK it may or may not be PoFA compliant. However, regarding your assumption above, regarding their failure to comply with the timescale for "giving" the notice, you need to consider the following...

The date you physically receive (it is "given") the NtK matters not one single iota unless you can prove that it was given on a particular date. What you need to count is the number of days from the date of the alleged contravention to the date that the NtK was issued or sent. If it arrived in a postmarked envelope (doubtful) then that is the date it was sent. Otherwise, there should be another date on the NtK which could state the issue date or just be the date of it. So, count the number of days from the event date to the sent date and add two working days to that. That is the "given" date and if it is more than 14, then the NtK is not PoFA compliant, irrespective of whether the rest of the wording in it is.

Regarding the time between entering and leaving the location, that is relevant as far as breaches of the PPCs ATA CoP. Without knowing which PPC and therefore which ATA they belong to, it is difficult to advise except to say that it will be a breach of their ATA CoP no matter what as they have not allowed enough "consideration" time for the driver to "consider" whether to accept the terms and leave.

littlebluefella77

The NtK states date of posting on the 4th June.  This is 19 days after the offense or 18 with respect to PoFA.
It has been issued by The Parking Group Ltd
The car park is White Rose Retail Centre in Doncaster
Photos are from Street view as I will collect my own tomorrow.

First photo shows signage on entry to car park.  It states "Terms and conditions apply.  See notices in the car park for details"

Second shows the space I parked in.


Third shows the actual terms and conditions.  Whilst I appreciate you cannot read these off of the photo (I will update tomorrow with greater clarity), it should demonstrate that no one could reasonably be expected to park, exit their vehicle, approach the signs, read them and return to their vehicle and then move, inside of 70 seconds.

Gr1pr

Start with plan A, complaining to the White Rose retail centre management team. ( Or the landowner. )

From the timescales alone your account seems to indicate that they failed POFA, so no keeper liability 

Download and study the BPA CoP version 9, section 13 , then the additional information at the bottom of the CoP regarding consideration time and grace periods 

Coupon-mad

littlebluefella77 said:

The NtK states date of posting on the 4th June.  This is 19 days after the offense or 18 with respect to PoFA.
It has been issued by The Parking Group Ltd
The car park is White Rose Retail Centre in Doncaster
Photos are from Street view as I will collect my own tomorrow.

First photo shows signage on entry to car park.  It states "Terms and conditions apply.  See notices in the car park for details"

Second shows the space I parked in.


Third shows the actual terms and conditions.  Whilst I appreciate you cannot read these off of the photo (I will update tomorrow with greater clarity), it should demonstrate that no one could reasonably be expected to park, exit their vehicle, approach the signs, read them and return to their vehicle and then move, inside of 70 seconds.

You do know NOT TO SAY OR IMPLY WHO WAS DRIVING IN YOUR APPEAL?

You have a guaranteed win as long as you ONLY appeal as registered keeper, and if this firm are BPA members (not IPC AOS?).

I am-worried you keep telling the story as the driver and you need to know NOT to do this!

LDast

littlebluefella77 said:

The NtK states date of posting on the 4th June.  This is 19 days after the offense or 18 with respect to PoFA.

In which case no need to provide extra photos or anything as long as you don't blab who was driving, inadvertently or otherwise. You have already blabbed in your posts above. Always refer to "the driver" did this ri that. You are the keeper.

It was not and never could have been an "offence" [sic]. You are the known keeper. As the NtK is not PoFA compliant, the known keeper cannot be liable. Only the unknown driver is liable and they have no idea who that is unless you tell them.

Catch 22 for the PPC and a win at POPLA.

Coupon-mad

Please show us both sides of the NTK, redacting your data, VRM and any QR code but leave all dates/times showing