Azure Parking tickets for stopping a few mins in car park

Danny30

Thank you all. Below is my response. Does it look okay?

1.      the Notice to Keeper fails the POFA 2012, because there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge as required by 9 (2) (e) (i) which means that the liability cannot be transferred to the keeper. This renders the NTK invalid.

 

2.      There is also no “period of parking” specified as required by POFA 9 (2) (a).

 

3.      The sign stating ‘NO PARKING AT ANY TIME’ is forbidding in nature. A motorist cannot form a contract by doing something that is forbidden. For a contract to be formed there must be 3 elements: offer consideration and acceptance. The signs make no offer to park, there is no consideration offered, therefore there can be no acceptance, therefore no contract can be formed.

 

4.      The signage is not adequate or compliant and doesn’t offer a driver sufficient warning when approaching or entering the car park as to what the terms and conditions are. As can be seen with images provided, there is no signage visible at all when entering the side road leading to the car park, or upon the entrance itself apart from 1 small sign on the wall which can be easily missed when entering the car park in question. Then in the car park itself, there are no signs visible again, only 3 small signs at the far end of the car park which again can be easily missed by a driver entering the car park.

Gr1pr

1) it doesn't render the NTK PCN invalid, it fails to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, so is unenforceable against the keeper, so start by saying that their evidence pack proves the following assertions in your Popla appeal 

For 2 & 3 & 4 , state that their evidence pack proves the following 

Or something similar, so maybe a preamble and then the 4 points, suitably adapted 

Personally, I would never state that a PCN was invalid 

Grizebeck

Leave number 3 out 

Danny30

Just received the second response from Azure on the other parking invoice and as part of their evidence they state:

"The Car Park Operator is not relying on POFA 2012 to pursue this charge. They will continue to pursue the Registered keeper based on the probability they were the driver on the date of the event. • The Parking Charge has been issued correctly as the vehicle was not allowed to park at this location".

I was going to write as an addition the previous response above (that was amended as per the advice) the following:

"Azure cannot pursue the charge on the the probability that they assume the registered keeper was the driver on the date of the event. That has no basis as a defence for the failure to adhere to POFA 2012 9 (2) (e) (i).

Should I bother adding that in?

Coupon-mad

If this one is the non-PoFA one, then yes.

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

If this one is the non-PoFA one, then yes.

Thanks. Yes, both the NTK's were the same as the one I posted earlier in the thread. 

Coupon-mad

Good. I know we have an Azure thread with a POFA compliant version (sent in time) but I guess someone else's case then.

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Good. I know we have an Azure thread with a POFA compliant version (sent in time) but I guess someone else's case then.

Actually, I think I may have messed up as there are differences between the two. Didn't even think to check properly as assumed both would b be the same as arrived at same time. This is the second one. First one is on the second page of this thread. Is this one POFA compliant then? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, possibly but who knows for sure because you've covered the two dates we need to know (but your full name is showing).

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, possibly but who knows for sure because you've covered the two dates we need to know (but your full name is showing, Tina).

Sorry, Re attached here.