C.U.P Enforcement - 'Parking' in a 'No parking area' - POPLA Appeal - Unsuccessful

Vikom04

Good evening you legends,

I hope you're all well.

I've come with a query regarding a NTK which was received recently. I'll be sending the online appeal tonight, or first thing in the morning, so it falls within the 28 day period (beginning day after the notice was issued - lots of life admin has kept me from doing this sooner but it's now at the top of the pile.) 

Background context - The Driver (TD) pulled over into the bay, marked with double yellows, to pick me up from town. TD had the hazards on and did not leave the vehicle at any point. Total time there was approx. 7 minutes at a guess. I'll also be doing a SAR to see what time stamps they have as the ones on the NTK are illegible. TD's 3 year old son was in the back of the car, having a meltdown so was dealing with that too.

The Keeper (TK) (who may or may not have been TD) is also 6 months pregnant and considered at high risk due to pre-eclampsia as they suffered a miscarriage earlier this year. (N.B - I'm only mentioning this as I'm wondering if this will give any more credence to the appeal as the registered keeper due to the stress it is, and will, cause whilst dealing with it, impacting her health and putting the pregnancy at risk. TK also works full-time in a stressful job, and has two young children.

My understanding was you could briefly pull over onto double yellows for picking up and setting down. However, their signage specifically prohibits this. Of course, I only saw this when I subsequently went back to get some photos, and I imagine TD at the time didn't see the signage either.

No correspondence has been made with CUP Enforcement as of yet, so TD not identified.


I've seen the template appeal on the newbies thread, and I've also searched the forum for previous CUP cases BUT I've found that the NTK wording has been updated since this post ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80413396/#Comment_80413396 )
 and on the NTK letter, it specifically refers to PoFA Paragraph 9.


I'm wondering f there was anything else more specific I could include in the appeal, or if any of you parking legends have any thoughts on this?

I've included a copy of the NTK and also the area of the parking and a close up of the sign.

Thank you so much for your help and time.

Best Regards,

Vikom

Coupon-mad

"No Parking At All Times".

Read the most recent winning POPLA decision

Vikom04

@Coupon-mad

Thank you ; this thread? ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6543232/euro-car-parks-ntk/p1 )

With this POPLA decision: ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81134174/#Comment_81134174 ) ?


Thank you.

From what I understand it's paradoxical, and if they wanted to pursue trespass that's a different matter, but it can't be parking?

Half_way

Where is that?

Plan A is to complain to the landowner

1: Jopson vs Homegaurd clearly defined that loading /unloading is not parking, and you have been issued a parking charge notice from an un regulated parking company, therefore if they are charging you as registered keeper for parking when the vehicle was being loaded/unloaded (with people or goods) they have accessed your personal data without just cause

 This should form the basis of a claim against the landowner if known (hence the where is it question)

2: Double yellow lines allow for loading and unloading unless there are also side blips, the pictures supplied show no such things, and while private parking is un regulated, and they could paint pretty lines for whatever reason they like, if they are trying ( and failing) to imitate real lines then they have failed.

 However, on a closer look it would appear that the public highway ( if it is that) is not on the concrete lay-by - although its not clearly defined as "private" so an element of the consumer rights act would come into play

Apart from all that and going down that rabbit hole, see point 1 above

3: "No parking at any time" apart from the fact the vehicle was not parked, you can not agree to do something that you are not permitted to do this is known as a forbidding contract and the driver can not be held to such nonsensical rubbish, again the vehicle was not parked - see item 1

Vikom04

Hi all,

Please see first draft of appeal. Please let me know your thoughts and if I need to add/remove anything.

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Re: Parking Charge Notice to Keeper, PCN ref xxxxx

I am appealing your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or supposed contractual agreement.

I require further evidence of the alleged ‘parking’ event, as the time stamped photos are illegible and actually show a vehicle with hazard warning lights on, indicating that the driver had no intention of parking and was most likely loading/unloading which has been clearly defined in the courts as not constituting a parking event.

Additionally, I request evidence demonstrating that you, as an Operator, have a contract with the landowner to pursue such matters.

More importantly, however, I draw your attention to the first sentence of paragraph two on your Parking Charge Notice; “The signage displayed at the entrance of the car park…” and to sentence three of the same paragraph; “Motorists who choose to park their vehicle in the car park…”.

This is relevant as you state that the alleged contravention is “parked on or within a no parking area”. This Parking Charge Notice is therefore paradoxical in it’s nature as it contradicts the claim that the car was parked in a 'Car Park'.

It is either a 'Car Park' or a 'No Parking area'; they are mutually exclusive and cannot exist in tandem. If it is a ‘no parking area’, as you state, then there is no ‘parking contract’ on offer, as the driver could not agree to do something which they are not permitted to do.

As a result, there has been no contractual breach of any terms, as the car was not parked nor was it in a car park. No contract could therefore be entered into, with regards to utilising parking facilities, as none existed.

It is on these grounds, as the Registered Keeper, I refute any further claims of a Parking Charge and trust you will not continue with matters further.

Regards

Mr Vikom

@Half_way

See attached photos for location. Thin red circle in both photos indicates the area.

Thorndorise

Sharing as you're not alone with this site, this poster has just put the same spot on ! 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6572556/parking-charge-notice-for-stopping-for-28seconds#latest

Umkomaas

Regards

Mr Vikom

That's not how to end a business letter to an organisation attempting to take money from you. 'Your faithfully'!

peter101978

I’ve had a similar issue at the same spot. Our first appeal was rejected on the grounds that our brake lights weren’t on, which they claimed meant we must have been parked. However, their photos clearly show the brake lights illuminated, and we only stopped for 28 seconds.

When I appealed to POPLA, they refused to consider it because I submitted the appeal just after the 28-day window had passed. I requested an extension, explaining that I was away on business for 7 days during the latter part of the appeal period, but they said extensions are only granted if someone is out of the country for most or all of the appeal period.

I also sent a recorded delivery letter to the parking enforcement company’s registered office, outlining the following points:

• The photos provided show a vehicle with brake lights illuminated for a total duration of 28 seconds, indicating no intention to park. The vehicle was most likely stopped briefly to load or unload, which has been clearly defined in court as not constituting a parking event.
• Stopping to read a sign constitutes the very contravention for which this charge has been issued. This makes the supposed contract contradictory and impossible to accept without breaking it. Any such terms would not have been readable from a moving vehicle, and it is denied that the signage was adequately displayed on the roadway.
• I requested evidence demonstrating that the Operator has a valid contract with the landowner to issue such charges.
• The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) itself is contradictory. It states: “The signage displayed at the entrance of the car park…” and later refers to the alleged contravention as “parked on or within a no parking area.” The PCN paradoxically refers to a ‘Car Park’ while alleging a no-parking violation.
• If this is a ‘no parking area,’ as stated, then no parking contract can exist. The driver cannot agree to terms permitting parking in an area where parking is not allowed.

In my letter, I concluded that no contractual breach occurred because the vehicle was not parked, and no valid parking contract could have existed. I requested that the company cease pursuing this matter further.

Despite this, they ignored my letter and instead sent me a final demand, increasing the charge to £140.

At this stage, I’m considering taking the matter to court, as I feel I haven’t been given a fair chance to have my points heard or properly reviewed. My concern is whether I’m opening myself up to a lengthy and costly legal battle. Could the legal costs escalate significantly? I’d appreciate any advice or insight."

peter101978

This is a link to the photos etc...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6572556/parking-charge-notice-for-stopping-for-28seconds#latest

Grizebeck

How do you intend to take the matter to court.

1505grandad

@peter101978 -  for bespoke advice etc please start your own thread.