Parking charge notice for stopping for 28seconds.

peter101978

Hi all,
I wondered if someone could give me some advice as I don't know whether to give up perusing the issue or just to give up and pay the PCN. We received a PCN for 'Parking on or within a no parking area'(see photo of sign within the no parking area below). We have appealed the PCN and not had any luck, also POPLA have rejected my request to extend the period to appeal, as we missed the 28 day appeals period by a couple of days, so we were unable to start an appeal with them (there are several reason why this happened). 

• Duration of Stop: Approximately 28 seconds! (you can see from the CCTV photos, the duration of the stop, that my brake lights were for the whole period of time I had stopped and I have enclosed a photo showing the location where the parking charge notice was issued).

The PCN has been issued from CCTV footage, its also important to note that the PCN doesn't state a duration of stay and my argument has been that given the brief duration of the stop and the fact that the vehicle was stationary with the brake lights on, it is reasonable to conclude that this was a temporary stop rather than parking. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice advises that parking charges should not be issued for brief stops, such as those made to read signage or to allow other vehicles to pass.

The letter from C.U.P Enforcement stated that the vehicle was stationary with its lights off. However, the photographic evidence provided clearly shows that the brake lights were on throughout the entire 28-second stop. No evidence has been provided to dispute this, and the claim regarding the lights being off is factually incorrect (e.g. the light on the spoiler is a brake light).

I also argued that the vehicle was stopped temporarily, not parked, and the stop lasted for a very short duration. After seeing the signage, I waited for other vehicles to pass before continuing my journey. This was a necessary and brief stop for safety, not a parking violation.

Finally, given the short duration of the stop and the fact that the vehicle did not cause any obstruction or hazard, I believe the enforcement of this charge is disproportionate to the circumstances and it appears as though 'grace period' has been given.

At this moment in time I haven't been able to get anywhere with this issue, I usually pay fines on time, and I am also the sort of person who takes responsibility when I do something wrong. With regards to the circumstances around this fine, I believe I have valid reasons for making an appeal and this will be my first time going through this process.

We have also received a reminder that I have until 11th December 2024 to pay the fine or they 'will take further action'. I understand that they don't want people parking in that area and I totally understand why, but I just think that's its very unfair to issue a notice for stopping less than 30 seconds and to treat people this way, also I don't want others to fall foul of the same issue.

What do you all think?, should I just give up and pay the money?, is a 28 second stop a reason to issue a £100 parking charge notice and more to the point, wouldn't you be worried about going anywhere and doing anything in a vehicle after receiving something like this.

 

Thorndorise

Hey, have a read of the advice here also https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6571966/c-u-p-enforcement-notice-to-keeper-pulling-over-briefly-and-picking-up-on-double-yellow-lines#latest

It appears that this spot is getting a few people - keep us updated here (i.e. don't post on the other thread unless sharing useful info - this helps the experts keep to the specifics of your case) - these do sound, on the whole, identical cases.

Gr1pr

That recent Popla win may be a good one to rebut these types of PCNs 

peter101978

update on the situation... Our first appeal was rejected by C.U.P. 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’d appreciate any advice or insight."

Gr1pr

Wait for a Letter of Claim or a court claim, within the next 6 years , then come back to this thread for further advice 

Ignore the intervening but powerless debt collectors letters 

fisherjim

No where on the signs or paperwork will you find the word "fine" please stop using it you have a speculative invoice from chancers, and these Muppets must love this site they can scam people all day long, second case this week.

You can see the brake lights in the photo, though due to the random almost anything goes in the name of style new insistence by car manufacturers to bolt any old LED configuration on cars they aren't that prominent.

The person sending out the NTK will be a low paid office junior that won't have a clue anyway.

If you had stopped on or to the right of the DYL's they couldn't have touched you, that is the highway and you are allowed to stop there for a sort duration. But you are where you are, you dared to straddle private land and a PPC that only exists for profit caught you.

Stop sending things recorded delivery, their addresses (and some scammers have as many as four) are mail drops not real offices no one takes them in, no one signs for them, they are just bulk redirected to their secret back office.

You are in the clutches of greedy scammers that don't care, don't listen, don't read half of what you write, and only send out template rejections.

But they and their scam ATA set the process, they won't listen to any reasoning or deviate, that doesn't make money, and they are all in league together.

They are invoices, what other businesses slot in a fake appeal stage when they send you a bill?

The appeal stage is there 1.To give the impression to the general public who don't know any better that these are official fines, they are not. 2. To con people into thinking there is a fair process to challenge, it isn't!

The charge has not increased to £140 their tame debt collectors have added on their fee for sending out (not so) scary letters, but you don't have a proven debt, they work on a no win no fee contract, you won't be paying them so don't engage.

As you said you didn't park, and the signage is prohibitive, indicating trespass not a chargeable contract, you cannot be charged a fee for something you weren't offered, so let the dimwits waste their time and effort chasing nothing and let it go its course with the forum's help.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore CUP now. No paying.

But we had another poster here yesterday with a new CUP case at POPLA stage, and it would be helpful if you can please show your (data redacted) POPLA appeal here to help them.