Private operator PCN for parking on public highway

Thisisloz

Hi folks

I've received 2 PCNs from a private parking enforcement operator for being parked on the public highway near some residential flats. The flats have a designated garage area, which is owned by the residents. Where I've parked is just outside the garage area. The operator has put signs up in the garage area where they have jurisdiction (see the lower photo on the image of the ticket attached) and also at the entrance to the garage area, on the side wall of the end garage which faces the public highway (the upper image on the ticket attached) and where I was parked. 

After appealing to the operator I received a generic rejection that didn't address any of the points raised but was directed to the IAS to escalate the matter. I've done this, clearly explaining how the area I where I parked is the public highway and that the operators signed facing the highway doesn't mean they have the right to enforce parking restriction on the highway. I also noted how the ticket had been issued for not parking in a marked bay when there are no bays on the road or the privately owned area. I provided various pictures of the area and a site map with clearly highlighted areas to show what is owned by the residents of the flats, what is owned by the council and also a representation of my car, parked on the highway. 

Despite this, today I received a rejection/dismissal from IAS stating a number of items including that they are "satisfied that I am parked in an area that the operator has authority". I can't explain how confident I was that my appeal was so damning it would mean the adjudicator could do nothing but cancel the PCNs, so am bemused to say the least to pleased to have landed here.

I'm still confident of the grounds of my appeal as I know the area well and know that people residents have parked in the same exact spot without issue, but am open professional insight and opinion before I either pay the fines and forget it (I'm now passed the threshold for the "discounted rate" so £200 in total) or make plans to take it further, which I'm not entirely sure what options I have. 

All help appreciated.

KeithP

Looks like the rear nearside wheel of that Mini is on the yellow cross-hatched area.
That corner of the car is 'over the line' marked in a lighter grey.

Where exactly is this place? Can we see it on Google Street View?

You've left your full name in clear view on that PCN image you have shown us.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore UKCPM from now on - and their debt crawlers - until Gladstones send a template LBC, then respond. Nobody pays.

Read the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread, then the 2nd. Those are your stages. Very easy.

Thisisloz

Hi @Coupon-mad thank you for your response above. I've received a claim from BW and am sharing the first draft of my defence, if anyone could kindly review?

Thanks in advance

3. The Defendant further denies that any parking charges are owed or the following reasons. The vehicle was parked on the public highway, which falls under the jurisdiction of the local authority and not the Claimant, who has no lawful authority over this land. One of the signs at the location directly faces the public highway, giving the misleading impression that restrictions extend to land outside of the Claimant’s remit. The signage is ambiguous, does not clearly set out the alleged contraventions, and cannot reasonably be said to form the basis of any contractual agreement. The Defendant, as one of the landowners and a long-term resident, has rights over the communal estate and reasonably believes this includes authority to challenge or cancel purported parking charges. In relation to the first PCN (“no parking/no stopping”), the allegation is unfounded. The vehicle was parked wholly on the public highway, with only a negligible overhang of approximately 5cm of the rear bumper into the garage entrance hatched area. No wheel encroached upon the markings, and no obstruction was caused to the garages or highway. In relation to the second PCN (“no parking outside of a marked bay”), the allegation is impossible to sustain as no marked bays exist at the site, and the signage contains no requirement to park in such bays. These allegations are therefore void for uncertainty and unenforceable. The Defendant also notes that the Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable. Appeals were dismissed in a generic fashion without proper consideration, and a reasonable request for photographic metadata was ignored. These failures undermine the credibility of the Claimant’s case and reinforce the view that the charges are a product of predatory ticketing rather than legitimate regulation of land.

Car1980

You add about no parking being a forbidding contract.

Thisisloz

Car1980 said:

You add about no parking being a forbidding contract.

Yes I added this because the signage says “no parking or stopping at any time” without specifying where this restriction applies. At the time of receiving the PCN I assumed (potentially incorrectly) that the parking firm must have meant that it's the hatched area, and I added this to my appeal at the time. But in fact the signage is so vague I still to this day do not know where the prohibition applies. A reasonable driver cannot tell whether it applies to the garages, the highway, or the whole estate, so it's impossible to understand the alleged contravention. In fact it seems the parking firm are trying to get all parts of the estate and the highway under their purview so they can issue more tickets.

The sign also tells residents to “seek further advice or refrain from parking” which from what I understand is not a proper contractual term. It’s vague and effectively a blanket prohibition that doesn't give any information relevant to the site. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires contractual terms to be transparent and prominent, so the wording fails both tests? 

I thought this would support the argument that the contract has not been made and the parking firm is seeking to enforce beyond its lawful authority?

Thisisloz

Second draft to address clarity around the inclusion of the generic restrictions on the signage.

3. The Defendant further denies that any parking charges are owed for the following reasons. The vehicle was parked on the public highway, which falls under the jurisdiction of the local authority and not the Claimant, who has no lawful authority over this land. One of the signs at the location directly faces the public highway, where the vehicle was parked, giving the misleading impression that restrictions extend to land outside of the Claimant’s remit. The signage is ambiguous and fails to specify where any restrictions apply. As such, it cannot reasonably be said to form the basis of any contractual agreement.In relation to the first PCN (“no parking/no stopping”), the allegation is unfounded. Due to the unclear signage and lack of clarity around where the restrictions apply, the Defendant reasonably believed that parking on the public highway, where the vehicle was situated, was lawful. At most, only a negligible overhang of approximately 5cm of the rear bumper extended into a hatched area at the site. No wheel encroached upon the markings, and no obstruction was caused to the garages or highway.In relation to the second PCN (“no parking outside of a marked bay”), the allegation is impossible to sustain, as no marked bays exist at the site and the signage imposes no requirement to park within such bays. These allegations are therefore void for uncertainty and unenforceable.The Defendant also notes that the Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable. Appeals were dismissed in a generic fashion without proper consideration, and a reasonable request for photographic metadata was ignored. The manner in which it was handled demonstrates the Claimant’s unreasonable and predatory approach. These failures question the credibility of the Claimant’s case and reinforce the view that the charges are a product of predatory ticketing rather than legitimate regulation of land.

Car1980

Sorry, meant to type "maybe add".

A forbidding contract cannot constitute a contractual offer. There is no offer or mention of consideration; merely a prohibitive instruction where no offer exists and no consideration ie. something of value could be exchanged. If no contract exists between the Claimant and Defendant, and it follows that no contract could have been breached.

James_Poisson

If they want to claim that road is private then there should be signage as you enter, also it would appear they are unusually using CCTV to monitor, but no parking at anytime is not offering a contract, i.e. we are not offering anything to charge you for at anytime, the dimwits would be better saying parking here will cost you £100.

This isn't good enough:

kryten3000

Birmingham City Council list Bantry Close as adopted highway in their official list. Annoyingly their interactive map doesn't seem to show adopted highways, but there is a dotted line across from the edge of the first garage which would place the car mostly off the private land.

Bantry Close SP1583NW

Coupon-mad

If you need to remove something from the template defence to fit that in, you can drop the first or the final paragraph. Doesn't affect the defence really!