Park direct uk ltd refused transfer of liability

kryten3000

I would add that the address provided for the driver is both valid and in the UK to head off any suggestion by the IAS that you have provided an invalid one.

"This is my keeper appeal for this Parking Charge Notice from Park Direct Limited. for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions at <location> on the <date>.

On receipt of Park Direct's Notice to Keeper, I responded providing the name and address for service of the driver as requested.

Despite complying with their invitation in full, Park Direct have declined to accept this as a transfer of liability and are continuing to pursue me for the charge."

Then add the stuff about asking for driving licence and insurance documents.

Coupon-mad

You could also add a second point that there are no terms and conditions on the sign no contract offered. No consideration (nothing of value) is offered by a NO PARKING sign.

Upload a dated (metadata showing) photo or screenshot of it.

IAS assessors are jobbing 'legals' so they will understand both legal points. But they aren't impartial IMHO and the IAS is considered a kangaroo court. Let's see!

winnahwinnah2025

kryten3000 said:

I would add that the address provided for the driver is both valid and in the UK to head off any suggestion by the IAS that you have provided an invalid one.

"This is my keeper appeal for this Parking Charge Notice from Park Direct Limited. for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions at <location> on the <date>.

On receipt of Park Direct's Notice to Keeper, I responded providing the name and address for service of the driver as requested.

Despite complying with their invitation in full, Park Direct have declined to accept this as a transfer of liability and are continuing to pursue me for the charge."

Then add the stuff about asking for driving licence and insurance documents.

Thanks I'll add that too 

winnahwinnah2025

Coupon-mad said:

You could also add a second point that there are no terms and conditions on the sign no contract offered. No consideration (nothing of value) is offered by a NO PARKING sign.

Upload a dated (metadata showing) photo or screenshot of it.

IAS assessors are jobbing 'legals' so they will understand both legal points. But they aren't impartial IMHO and the IAS is considered a kangaroo court. Let's see!

Thanks I'll that too but what is a metadata? Should I also mention there is no GPEOL ? And just to understand if there is no t&cs on a sign that mean no contract offered ?

kryten3000

Metadata is the invisible information stored with a digital image, usually date and time plus additional stuff about the camera model, shutter speed and so on.

It's not the terms as such, but the words "NO PARKING" make it a forbidding sign.  If the sign said "PARKING HERE £100" then there is an offer which a driver might be judged to have accepted if they park, but that's not what the sign says.

Don't bother with GPEOL.  

Coupon-mad

Which is why I explained you need the photo to be 'dated' and/or a screenshot.

winnahwinnah2025

So i re wrote it using a bit of @Coupon-mad @kryten3000

Dear adjudicator, This is my keeper appeal for this Parking Charge Notice from Park Direct uk for an alleged breach of contract at 233 high st UB8 1LD on the 04/04/2025

On receipt of Park Direct uk Notice to Keeper, I responded providing the name and a servicable address of the driver as requested.

Despite complying with their invitation in full, Park Direct uk have declined to accept this as a transfer of liability and are continuing to pursue me for the charge

Park Direct uk then asked me to provide them with the nominated drivers proof and copy of drivers licence and insurance documents as if they are the law and this is a criminal offence, they should not be asking me for that and no where does it state in POFA 2012 or IPC code of conduct does it require for registered keeper to provide to creditor in order to transfer liability. Park direct uk in fact have created a ficticious obstacle not in line with POFA 2012 or IPC code of conduct and carried on demanding those documents from me or to pay up. As soon as I transferred liability to driver they should have discharged me from any liability and sent correspondence to the nominated driver as in a (NTD) form which they did not bother to and just refused to transfer liability from the start, this is very unfair and I have been treated unfairly and been forced to take liability for this PCN from park direct uk and that is why it has got to this stage of appeal.

Park direct uk actions also constitute clear breaches of thier KADOE contract with the DVLA, by continuing to process my personal data and pursuing me for a charge I am not liable for, park direct uk has engaged in unlawful data processing.

POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1) explicitly states that a creditor may only hold the keeper liable if they do not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver. I provided park direct uk with both the name and a valid, serviceable UK address for the driver, thereby discharging my liability.

Furthermore, POFA does not permit the reissuing of a Notice to Keeper once liability has been transferred. Park direct uk decision to disregard the lawful transfer of liability and proceed against me is a flagrant abuse of process.


IPC code of conduct states
7.4 If a Motorist receives a postal notification, and they think it has been incorrectly issued
they should:
7.4.1 If they are not the Driver:
7.4.1.1 Identify the Driver by providing the operator with the name and address of the person driving the Vehicle at the time of the Parking Event. Details of how to do this will be on the notice.

POFA 2012 schedule 4 states

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.

Coupon-mad

It's not a 'no stopping' sign.

Johnersh

Personally I wouldn't add anything about signage because the appellant O/P was not the driver and was not party to the contract. Whether or not the driver saw the signs *on that day* or agreed to the terms are not something the O/P can give direct evidence on.

This is a case where if you throw in the kitchen sink, the very good "best argument" that the PPC is not applying the law correctly, risks being lost amongst what they'll argue is 'more internet template'.

Lol. Page 11 already and they haven't even issued proceedings yet! 

The_Slithy_Tove

Johnersh said:

Personally I wouldn't add anything about signage because the appellant O/P was not the driver and was not party to the contract. Whether or not the driver saw the signs *on that day* or agreed to the terms are not something the O/P can give direct evidence on.

I would tend to agree.

Johnersh said:

Lol. Page 11 already and they haven't even issued proceedings yet! 

This thread may be 11 pages long, but it's still less than a week old.