CUP Enforcement in Watford (again)

Argonaut1983

Hi guys,

I've read the newbies section and a large number of posts from other users regarding CUP at this location. I just have a question about Pofa/non-Pofa but I will set the scene for good measure. It's the same as everyone else's pretty much with a notice to registered keeper PCN.

The car had just left the adjacent Sainsbury's car park after being parked there for a few hours on Mothers Day. It was pulled over for a minute or two with the engine and hazards on (as seen in the CCTV photos) while the passenger had to retrieve a lost children's comfort/soft toy. Most people with small children will know that this is an emergency from the distress it causes a child when losing their primary comfort/soft toy.

It's a no parking area and no parking occurred. On the generic PCN it claims the area is a car park and that there is an entrance to said car park. There is not. The location is clearly just a trap with poor signage visibility to anyone inside a car and no entrance/exit signs as it's a tiny piece of land. It must be making CUP a healthy income as people are always pulled over there. I read a CUP appeal rejection letter in another threads that talks about fire exits being blocked but that building is a disused bar/restaurant and has been totally vacant for a year or two. 

I initially thought the PCN was Pofa 2012 because it mentions in on the back page. The PCN would then be invalid because it was created after 14 days on the 14th April. The contravention date was the 30th March. So from Monday 31st March the latest it should have been created would be the 13th April (a day earlier than it actually was and two days late with delivery on the April 15th ).

But on other CUP letters I have on here, some have Pofa 2012 info on the front page too. So now I'm not sure which version I have. If it's non-Pofa then liability can't be transferred to the registered keeper so either way I'm pretty sure a POPLA appeal would win from what I've read on the forum.     
If someone could help me clarify which one I have that would be greatly appreciated. Any further advice or ideas for letter wording would also be welcomed. From the other threads I've read, it seems that the Pofa points are the strongest to invalidate the PCN as opposed to appealing about the signage, lack of contract because it's a no parking area, landowners permission and perceived losses, general morality etc. I've seen al these rejected by POPLA in appeals shared by other users. 

Thanks in advance and massive respect to everyone that created this forum and that help so many people.


hxxps://imgur.com/a/rXnlLE8

Car1980

Yep, see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6485137/smart-parking-easy-win

But I'd say your other main defence is you weren't parked. 

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/unparalleled-legal-victory-defining-the-true-meaning-of-parking

You might even want to risk Popla since it's a BPA invoice

Argonaut1983

Thanks for the reply, really appreciate the help. What do you mean by risking POPLA? 

Coupon-mad

PCN would then be invalid because it was created after 14 days on the 14th April. The contravention date was the 30th March. So from Monday 31st March the latest it should have been created would be the 13th April (a day earlier than it actually was and two days late with delivery on the April 15th 

This place is already a notorious cash cow site but the DVLA can't be bothered to ask for site postcodes in exchange for releasing keeper data. If they did, they'd see what we see and so would the MHCLG.

Show us the PCN - both sides - with ALL dates and timings showing.

Argonaut1983

Thanks for the reply. It's a disgrace for sure. 

I did attach a link to the images in the first post (I changed the http to hxxp as requested for Newbies) but maybe I got it wrong. 

Here is the link again: hxxps://imgur.com/a/rXnlLE8

Thanks for all your help

Coupon-mad

Show us the PCN - both sides - as photos please (IN A REPLY HERE, not a link) with ALL dates and timings showing. 

The link is inaccessible on my device which says imgur is insecure.

Argonaut1983

Sorry totally missed the option. Thanks 

kryten3000

This is definitely out of time for keeper liability.  Not deemed delivered until Wed, 16/04/25 which is the 17th day (of 14).

Coupon-mad

Argonaut1983 said:

The car had just left the adjacent Sainsbury's car park after being parked there for a few hours on Mothers Day. It was pulled over for a minute or two with the engine and hazards on (as seen in the CCTV photos) while the passenger had to retrieve a lost children's comfort/soft toy. Most people with small children will know that this is an emergency from the distress it causes a child when losing their primary comfort/soft toy.

It's a no parking area and no parking occurred. On the generic PCN it claims the area is a car park and that there is an entrance to said car park. There is not. The location is clearly just a trap with poor signage visibility to anyone inside a car and no entrance/exit signs as it's a tiny piece of land. It must be making CUP a healthy income as people are always pulled over there. 

Yep, non-POFA in wording and in dates.

How many minutes/seconds exactly, between photo 1 and photo 2?

I see no period of parking on the NTK either?

This place is already a notorious cash cow site but the DVLA can't be bothered to ask for site postcodes in exchange for releasing keeper data. If they did, they'd see what we see and so would the MHCLG.

Sites like this need their excessive, illegal covert CCTV shutting down because this sort of filming and immediate ticketing breaches the DPA 2018, UKGDPR, the data protection principles, the ICO's Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and the CPUTRs and CRA 2015 to boot.

The CMA and ICO need to look at this conduct & advise the Government how to end it, using the above laws and rules so that they can avoid a Judicial Review of this point.

Argonaut1983

Hi, thanks for the reply. The time difference is 1 minute exactly between images. No period of parking (although it wasn't parked) either. I'm assuming this can be challenged on grounds of no transfer of liability to the keeper?

kryten3000

Yes this is non-compliant as I mentioned before - delivered on day 17, "no keeper liability" and an automatic POPLA win provided that you spell it out in simple terms.