Challenging a private PCN on grounds of definition of parking?

ThePassimoptimist

Hi everyone,

Newbie here! I have looked at the FAQs and I am still confused, so I hope some of you can help.

I received a PCN from London Parking Solutions (IPC member) for parking "in a Permit Holders Only parking space without clearly displaying a valid parking permit." The PCN made no sense to me given that I only stopped at that spot for less than a minute to pick up passengers and make a u-turn (this is on a very narrow dead-end street where it is impossible to make a u-turn without stepping into the parking area). However, being a newbie and unaware of this forum, I tried to sensibly argue with them, including going through the IAS process. My argument was simply that stopping for less than one minute did not meet the legal definition of parking, hence no violation took place. In response, they argued that this was private land and that any stopping there counted as parking. A quick search online indicates that the definition of parking is debatable with many solicitors siding with the view that any stopping is parking. However, I also came across opposing views, including a successful case at the County Court in Birmingham last October (sorry, can't post links here as a newbie!)

My questions to this forum are as follows:

1) Given that I have, inadvertently, admitted that I was the driver at the time, and have opted to challenge them on the legal definition of parking rather than the points raised in the FAQ, is there a point in persisting in refusing to pay until the case goes to court?

2) From your experience, would challenging the PCN on grounds of the definition of parking have merit in court?

Thank you!

Gr1pr

1) court is the ONLY location where full and final settlement will occur, for one side or the other 

2) probably not, the judge will look at the landowner contract, parking company contract, the alleged breach of the parking contract by conduct of the driver, the terms and conditions on the signs, their prominence and locations, and decide if a breach occurred and if money is owed by the defendant to the claimant ( so the core details. )

There is a thought that STOPPING is not parking, parking is STOPPING, exiting the vehicle with the intention of leaving it there and subsequently leaving for a period of time ( or something like that )

But IANAL

LDast

You’ve exhausted the appeals process so you are now waiting to see if/when the PPC send a Letter of Claim (LoC) or an actual claim. Ignore all debt collection letters.

If/when you receive an LoC, read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread for advice on how to deal with it.

If this ever went as far as a claim, you have a very valid defence. What evidence have they provided to show that the driver breached any contractual terms? If the signs are prohibitive, no contract was formed with the driver. Stopping is not parking and there is plenty of persuasive case law to support that point.

fisherjim

The issue here is more about the signage stating "Permit Holders Only" in essence you were trespassing and a poxy PPC cannot invoice you for trespass, there was no offer to park so their can be no contract rather than a definition of parking.

Coupon-mad

ThePassimoptimist said:

Hi everyone,

Newbie here! I have looked at the FAQs and I am still confused, so I hope some of you can help.

I received a PCN from London Parking Solutions (IPC member) for parking "in a Permit Holders Only parking space without clearly displaying a valid parking permit." The PCN made no sense to me given that I only stopped at that spot for less than a minute to pick up passengers and make a u-turn (this is on a very narrow dead-end street where it is impossible to make a u-turn without stepping into the parking area). However, being a newbie and unaware of this forum, I tried to sensibly argue with them, including going through the IAS process. My argument was simply that stopping for less than one minute did not meet the legal definition of parking, hence no violation took place. In response, they argued that this was private land and that any stopping there counted as parking. A quick search online indicates that the definition of parking is debatable with many solicitors siding with the view that any stopping is parking. However, I also came across opposing views, including a successful case at the County Court in Birmingham last October (sorry, can't post links here as a newbie!)

My questions to this forum are as follows:

1) Given that I have, inadvertently, admitted that I was the driver at the time, and have opted to challenge them on the legal definition of parking rather than the points raised in the FAQ, is there a point in persisting in refusing to pay until the case goes to court?

2) From your experience, would challenging the PCN on grounds of the definition of parking have merit in court?

Thank you!

Yes and yes.

You'd win because there's no consideration period that has been allowed and because picking up passengers IS NOT parking.

The DLUHC spells this out in the (temporarily withdrawn) statutory Code of Practice in the definition of 'parking period'. There's no debate.

Le_Kirk

Also Jopson v Homeguard defines parking.

ThePassimoptimist

This is all extremely helpful. Thank you all! I will wait for the LoC to arrive and take it from there.