Civil Enforcement NTK after 14 days

mcdeesparkingfine

Good morning Forum!

Having won  a previous appeal with the help of you wonderful people, I find myself in the unfortunate situation of having to request your help once again. 

We visited the in-laws for new year's eve. They live in an assisted living facility with a car park that requires registration on a touch screen inside the building. We duly registered on arrival and left the next day. 

Yesterday - 18 January 2025 - I received the following parking charge from Civil enforcement. 

 



On close inspection of the signage, I assume this is because we did not register the car on the day we were leaving in accordance with the very small print: 






I must admit that we had thought we were following the instructions to register the vehicle every time you park as we had not moved the car, and even the residents of this accommodation were shocked to hear that visitor cars must be registered every day. 

I intend to appeal this PCN as I think the signage is very unclear and the only reference to multiple registrations is in a small font. I will attempt plan A but speaking to some residents, whose visitors forgot to register suggests that this is unlikely to be fruitful. 

From my research, I believe that even though they have not explicitly mentioned it in the NTK, Civil  Enforcement are relying on the POFA to establish keeper liability. In order to do so, however, their NTK would need to be compliant with the relevant sections of the POFA. In this case, the issue date is 14/01, with the date of the alleged incident being 1/01. The POFA deems a notice sent by post to be given two working days following the issue date. By my calculations, this means that the NTK has been sent too late to establish keeper liability and therefore a n appeal on the following lines should be my first course of action:

I am the registered keeper. Civil Enforcement cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged breach of contract (which is denied) if they do not follow the strict requirements of PoFA 2012.

As the registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency, your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Civil Enforcement have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

I would welcome any suggestions. Many thanks in advance. 

Fruitcake

You are correct. The NTK was given too late for the keeper to be held liable. 

Yes, go for Plan A, a complaint from the keeper to the landowner and the keeper's MP, stating that the signs are inadequate and incapable from forming a contract, and that the keeper cannot be held liable for something another person (the driver) did because CEL failed to comply with the law (the PoFA 2012).

If that fails to get a cancellation, then the keeper should appeal. A bespoke appeal is fine, or using the template in blue text from the NEWBIES plus a one liner that the NTK was given too later for the keeper to be held liable, therefore they should cancel now to save themselves money and the embarrassment of losing at PoPLA.

Please also sign the petition linked from the post below, and get all your friends and family to do the same.

Parked in a disabled Bay, no ticket - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

This currently affects about twelve million motorists a year.

In the complaint to the keeper's MP, please also ask when the mandatory government parking code of practice is going to be introduced to support the 2019 parking bill. Stress that you are not asking about the recently introduced joint BPA/IPC parking code of practice that (in my opinion) was deliberately introduced to mislead motorists and MPs into thinking it is the mandatory version. It is not. It was paid for by the unregulated private parking industry and for the unregulated private parking industry.
Also stress that there is no fair or independent appeals process for motorists, and this will not change until the government introduces the compulsory code of practice.

Getting MPs involved is the only way the unregulated parking industry will ever be brought under control, and the only way motorists will ever get a fair deal. 
 

tincombe

however, their NTK would need to be compliant

This is Emperor's New Clothes time! 

Don't read what you think should be there, just read what's actually there:

No mention of keeper liability;
In fact no mention of Notice to Keeper. 

Under the Code of Practice, BPA Approved Operators are permitted to NOT use 'keeper liability' in their PCNs. CEL is one which doesn't. 

There are 3 main groups:
Operators which seek to use 'keeper liability' and whose PCNs are compliant;
Those which aspire to, but make a hash of their notices;
Those which can't be bothered. 

So, telling CEL that their PCN isn't of the form which would allow them to enforce against the keeper won't exactly be a revelation to them. In any 'appeal' (not that you, as keeper, are appealing against anything because no-one's saying you are actually or prospectively liable) I wouldn't refer to NTK beyond 'I notice that you are not seeking to prospectively hold the keeper liable', if there's a template which can be amended so much the better. 

Coupon-mad

This is also a valid extra argument to throw in at POPLA stage:

"I must admit that we had thought we were following the instructions to register the vehicle every time you park as we had not moved the car, and even the residents of this accommodation were shocked to hear that visitor cars must be registered every day. 

I intend to appeal this PCN as I think the signage is very unclear and the only reference to multiple registrations is in a small font. "

mcdeesparkingfine

Thanks for comments. So I will proceed with:
1) a complaint to the land owner (+MP + sign the petition) 
2) in parallel, appeal to CEL, as below.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner. 

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

As the Notice to Keeper (NTK) states, you are not aware of the name/address of the driver; therefore you must rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") to hold the keeper liable. However your notice is not PoFA compliant as it was "given" 16 days after the 'Event', whereas the POFA sets a limit of 14 days for a NTK to be given in order for keeper liability to be possible in the first place.

I will not be paying this PCN, it has no prospect of success, nor legal standing; and I therefore suggest you cancel immediately. If however you wish to reject this appeal and waste more of your time and money then you are required to immediately issue me with a POPLA reference code.

3) If necessary, prepare a POPLA appeal including arguments around: 
     a) inadequate signage; and
     b) PoFA timescales and keeper liability. 

Does that sound about right? 

Coupon-mad

Yep.        

mcdeesparkingfine

And PCN cancelled! Not sure if it was plan A (complaint submitted through website contact form on Monday + phone call to manager earlier today) or the appeal submitted as above on Monday. All they said was: 

"We refer to recent communications with this office in respect of the Parking Charge Notice.

We now confirm that this Notice has been cancelled."

Anyway, another success for this forum!