CUP Enforcement - Watford

PCNDefender

2 x PCNs for the popular trap adjacent to Sainsburys, Watford

I have left it very late to post my own thread and it is not worth me trying to give reasons or excuses.

I am asking for opinions on my situation and on my amendments to the template defence.

I have until Monday 25th August to post my defence. I have been looking over others posts to get some information and advice, I have also sought advice by private message from one particular member on the forum . It is obviously better that I post publicly to get more opinions on my own situation and perhaps to assist others who are currently quietly looking for help, or maybe some others in the near future.

Alleged Contravention

September 2024 - NTK sent out 9 days later. POFA wording, I believe is compliant to pursue RK

Appealed unsuccessfully to both CUP and POPLA. RK now being pursued.

Alleged Contravention

August 2024 - NTK sent out almost 6 months later. No POFA wording on NTK

I mistakenly thought it was in relation to the first and ignored it

Both were rolled into one court claim.

I will post both NTK below and the claim form

PCNDefender

September 2024 - NTK sent out 9 days later. POFA wording, I believe is compliant to pursue RK

Appealed unsuccessfully to both CUP and POPLA. RK now being pursued.

PCNDefender

August 2024 - NTK sent out almost 6 months later. No POFA wording on NTK

I mistakenly thought it was in relation to the first and ignored it

Castle

The double yellow lines are on the public highway, so not relevant land.

Here's the TRO for Gaumont Approach:-WT052.pdf

PCNDefender

Claim Form

PCNDefender

I appreciate that this bulky and needs refining, I just wanted to ensure that I include the right information in paragraph 3.

I would appreciate some feedback, especially if there is any other examples of a win before or at court for parking in a no parking area.

Thanks in advance

3.1 Under POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days to transfer liability to the registered keeper, that is not the case for both NTKs. The NTKs are also non-compliant with POFA, in part because they failed to correctly state and identify accurately the land where the vehicle actually stopped, or the length of the time period of the alleged violation. Liability therefore can’t transfer to the RK.

3.2 Vehicle identification was made remotely through covert CCTV (not ANPR) capturing more images than necessary of public spaces and individuals.

3.2 The sign displayed states no parking is allowed. Even if it was a valid contract, it would constitute a "forbidding contract" where no offer actually exists and no consideration could be exchanged.
No contract exists between the Claimant and Defendant and it follows that no contract exists to have been breached.

In any case in order to read the signs, a driver would need to stop to safely read them. An offer needs time to be considered before it can be either rejected or accepted. This would only be possible whilst stationary. A vehicle stopping briefly to do so is not considered to be parked. The Defendant refers to the persuasive case (17.03.2025) of Cheung v Close Unit Protection Services (L0KF0M45) heard at Watford County Court where DJ Overton found that a brief stop in the very same location by the driver was not a breach of the alleged contract on offer.

3.3  A SAR to the DVLA has subsequently shown that the claimant has requested personal data of the RK under false pretense. The reasons given are breach of T&Cs of a private car park. That can be proven as a false declaration using the claimant’s own NTK letters.

3.4 An appeal was made at the time, and was denied.

The claimant in their response referred to the following;

Double yellow lines which are on the public highway, and the mention of them could support the defendant's case as they would permit a driver to stop briefly, and it would not be considered parking. The defendant refers to Homeguard v Jopson, which clarified the definition of parking. 

The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.

The very mention of them implies that they are relevant to the alleged breach and support the reason for issuing a PCN, that could suggest the claimant is attempting to mislead the defendant by presenting themselves as acting for the local authority. They also refer to the breach occurring in a car park. It is a lay-by, there is no parking bays and no defined entrance.

They produced an unsigned typed up notice purporting to be an agreement to act on behalf of the landowner, an estate agent. For a bar that has been closed for a number of years.

In summary their case is an allegation that a car was parked in any area that is exclusively no parking, but yet is also a car park. With said vehicle parked over double yellow lines not within the boundary of the private land.

Coupon-mad

PCNDefender said::

Claim Form

August 2024 - NTK sent out almost 6 months later. No POFA wording on NTK

I mistakenly thought it was in relation to the first and ignored it

Castle said:

The double yellow lines are on the public highway, so not relevant land.

Here's the TRO for Gaumont Approach:-WT052.pdf

I'd remove 3.4 (completely) and replace it with @Castle's point (and remove the Template para 10 so it all fits in MCOL):

This is public highway covered by a Traffic Order and as a matter of fact and law, the double yellow lines apply from property boundary to property boundary. This means any parking enforcement on that pavement is a matter for Watford Borough Council. The natural and legal meaning of council double yellow lines positively allows stopping to drop off or pick up passengers and/or to load/unload or for other exempt activity of short duration. Instant ticketing is impossible and this is not only not private land but it is also not 'relevant land' so the POFA does not apply and the Particulars of Claim are deliberately or negligently misleading to the court and the Defendant. A complaint has now been raised with Watford Borough Council's Highways Department and with the Information Commissioner due to unauthorised ticketing on land covered by a Traffic Order and for covert surveillance and illegal ticketing on the public highway.

PCNDefender

Thanks I appreciate you taking the time to look over this and type out a more concise and professional response

Coupon-mad

And you know those two complaints at the bottom? I really meant those - do them next week. Easy to do online. It wasn't an idle threat. You CERTAINLY need to show your evidence to Watford BC's Highways Dept at the very least.

Le_Kirk

Mon 25th is a bank holiday, so no defence will be due  you have an extra day.