Secure Parking solutions

Gr1pr

There Is a minimum of 10 minutes grace period at the end of an authorised parking session

Your POC says, unauthorised parking

Milliered

I have no idea if the NtK with PoFA pcn is compliant or not. I assume it is. Shall I send a photo of it? Just mindful of posts saying not to send photos in of NTK

How would I find out?

Gr1pr

Compare it to the examples by coupon mad in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum

Milliered

Having just read through the notes suggested and the NTK again,the NTK reads that I. So basically the NTK am the registered keeper etc . You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4of the PoFA Actc2012 that the driver is required to pay the parking charge in full.

However on the PoC it states that alternatively the keeper is pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4

So basically the NTK makes no mention that the keeper is liable ,only the driver.

Does this mean non compliance?

Really sorry for all the questions , just haven't got much time to get it wrong and trying to fit it in between night shifts!!

Milliered

Hi all.

This is a quick draft just to see if I am going in the right direction.

I have only changed paragraph 2 and my own words for paragraph 3.

Please let me know.

2.The allegations are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed or at all.

Referring to the Particulars of Claim,paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.

Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 30/08/25 as alleged.

Whilst the Defendant is the Registered Keeper,paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied as there is no clear and proven breach of contract.

The alleged liability sum is vastly exaggerated as no PCN can be £170 on private land. There was no costs incurred whatsoever as the vehicle was not even parked in the carpark,therefore not even using a parking space.

3. The Defendant disputes that the vehicle was even parked within the stated carpark boundary. The vehicle was parked for 10 minutes on the side of the junction off the main road that then enters the carpark once fully clear of the junction' approx 20 feet further.

The driver never went passed the first sign which is high up on the building. There is another sign further into the carpark ,which as the photos show was obscured by a van. Therefore a contract could not have been entered and agreed as the carpark was neither entered into or exited from caswell as being poorly signed.

When the driver questioned the attendant who had been hiding in his car about the boundary of the carpark, the attendant couldn't answer the question and just waved his hand in the direction of the front of the vehicle

All the other paragraphs as the template.

Is this a bit too long and repetitive.

Many thanks

Gr1pr

Your 2 should be 3

Your 3 should be a new 4 with the rest renumbered

Wait for other replies regarding content, which should be one paragraph containing the sentences involved and concise

Fix the typos too

Milliered

Hi. So should paragraph 2 be as the template then?

I do understand that it is a little long winded, just needed to know I was in the right ballpark or way out.

Unfortunately I have to go to work now so will only have a couple of hours tomorrow afternoon to get it drafted

Many thanks for your help

Gr1pr

Yes, paragraph 2 should not be altered apart from the optional ending described in the text by coupon mad

Coupon-mad

You don't need to talk about £170 being wildly exaggerated because the double recovery is already covered in the Template Defence.

Return para 2 back to the template version.

If they have images of you returning to the car then of course admit to driving!

Milliered

Hi ,thanks for the replies.

Coupon-mad,I don't think they do to be honest. Just two photos of the car. Never took a still photo of me at all . I returned to the car as he was taking photos of it. However, for all I know, he may have had a personal camera on that I didn't see . To be honest, I wasn't going down the path of denying being the driver, just more like not openly admitting it as it doesn't seem to directly ask anywhere if I was.

Will redraft and add that I was the driver air the end of para 2

Thanks