Returning within a no return period - ParkdirectUK

AG01

Hi,

As title, repeat entry within 2 hours. I successfully defended this before stating it was a different driver each time, but cannot find the template I used. Is there one available here?

Thank you for your help in advance.

Le_Kirk

Just use the standard appeal written in blue text in the NEWBIE sticky, save your winning point for the defence and/or witness statement.

AG01

Sent the appeal below:

This is an appeal from the registered keeper of the vehicle. It is made strictly in that capacity. The operator is put on notice that there is no obligation to identify the driver and no such information will be provided. Where any alleged parking contract is formed, if at all, it must be between the operator and a human being who is said to have read and accepted the terms on a sign, not with a vehicle.


There were two separate visits and a different driver for each visit. At most there would be one contract with the first driver on visit one and a separate contract with the second driver on visit two. A “no return within X hours” term that purports to treat the vehicle as the contracting party is legally incoherent. It attempts to bind a later driver to whatever the earlier driver supposedly did, breaching contract law.
Without a proven contracting party and a proven breach by that individual, there is no enforceable contract and nothing owed to the operator.

Additionally, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 and cannot create keeper liability. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to specify the vehicle, the relevant land and the period of parking to which the notice relates. That includes a clear date and span of time of the alleged parking event, set out in the wording of the notice itself.

This NtK does not state any date of contravention or date of event anywhere in its narrative text. It refers to an “alleged contravention” and an “outstanding parking charge” but does not state on what date this is alleged to have occurred. That alone is a failure of 9(2)(a).

The are small, low-quality ANPR stills. Any purported date and time in those images is effectively unreadable. All the mandatory information in paragraph 9 must be present and clear in the text of the notice. Critical, unreadable details in pictures has not satisfied the statute. The notice as served simply does not tell the keeper, in plain words, when the alleged event took place.

The same paragraph 9(2)(a) also demands that the notice specify the “period of parking”. This NtK never does that either. The are some “entry” and “exit” times but it does not translate them into any clear period of parking in the body of the notice.

There is no statement such as “the period of parking to which this notice relates is [date] from [time] to [time]”. A few timestamps is not a “period of parking” within the meaning of PoFA. That is a second and separate breach of 9(2)(a).

Paragraph 9(3) then requires that the notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under 9(2)(a). Here the allegation is a supposed “no return” rule, which relies on at least two visits.

The operator’s own images show an initial in/out and a later in/out. That is not one continuous stay, it is two distinct parking events with a gap between them. The notice is not tied to a single period of parking at all. PoFA Schedule 4 does not support this kind of “no return” construct. The statutory conditions for keeper liability are not met.
Because the NtK fails 9(2)(a) and 9(3), the operator has no lawful route to transfer liability from an unknown driver to the keeper. The burden remains entirely on the operator to identify the driver and to prove that that person actually agreed to, and then breached, a specific term. There is no presumption and no entitlement to infer that the keeper must have been the driver merely because their name appears on the V5C.

Persuasive case law confirms that keeper status alone is incapable of discharging that burden. In a non-PoFA situation such as this there is no legitimate route to keeper liability and no scope for any court to guess or assume who was driving.

Against that background, the operator’s presenting this NtK as if Schedule 4 somehow applies is not just wrong, it is misleading. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (including clause 8.1.1(d)) makes it clear that operators must not misstate the effect of PoFA or suggest that the keeper is liable where the statutory conditions are not satisfied. That is exactly what is happening here. The operator has accessed and processed keeper data obtained from the DVLA on the back of a legally defective notice, then tried to make it appear as if keeper liability were engaged.

This behaviour strays into the territory of unfair commercial practices under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The operator has failed to provide clear, legible, material information about the date and period of the alleged parking, misrepresented the legal position on keeper liability and sought to pressure payment on the back of unreadable “evidence” that cannot cure statutory defects.

Those are classic examples of misleading actions and misleading omissions. If this charge is not cancelled, a formal set of complaints will be raised with the DVLA, the ICO and the Competition and Markets Authority, specifically referencing misuse of keeper data, misrepresentation of PoFA, non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice and potential breaches of the DMCC Act.

There is no valid contract, no compliant NtK, no keeper liability and no evidence identifying or binding any driver. Any further contact other than to notify of a cancellation of the PCN will be construed as harassment and appropriate steps will be taken.


Reply below, enlarged images were provided, however it is not possible to identify anyone in the vehicle due to the poor quality:

Thank you for your appeal received on x regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice.
We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. Our records show that
this notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in a way which breaches the Terms and
Conditions of Parking.
The warning signs at the retail park advises that parking is permitted for a maximum stay of 2 hours for
the Retail units, with a no return period for 2 hours. Your vehicle parked on site between 13:57:22 until
14:30:39 and returned at 16:28:16 until 16:54:04. As your vehicle entered site and parked during the
no return period, your vehicle was parked in direct breach of the advertised terms of parking.
Kindly be advised, the signage clearly states, “Additional parking charges apply for each 24-hour period,
or part thereof, that the vehicle remains in breach or if it returns at any time.” As your vehicle returned
within the two-hour no-return period, the PCN was issued correctly and will be upheld.
The signs make it clear that if the terms and conditions are breached, that a Charge of £100 will be
levied if vehicles park outside of the Terms and Conditions displayed. It is the motorist's responsibility to
ensure that they return to their vehicle and remove it from the car park before the maximum period of
parking permitted expires and does not return to park within the no return period, as you did return
within the no return period, you became liable for the Charge advertised.
All of our warning signs prominently displayed a customer service telephone number which you could
have called in the event of any uncertainty when parking on site and had you called the number upon
your arrival, you would have been advised which steps to take in order to avoid receiving a PCN. We
must remind you that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the parking restrictions in force are
actively observed and adhered to when parking on PRIVATE PROPERTY and we would advise that you
do so in the future in order to prevent any further PCNs being issued. Regrettably, we can only cancel a
PCN if it was issued incorrectly of if the contravention did not occur and are unable to do so based on
the grounds of your appeal.
Unfortunately on this occasion, we have upheld the PCN as it was issued correctly. We have now
extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement
amount. Please now make payment of £60 to reach us by x or £100 to reach us by
x. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered
again. You now have a number of options; 1.Pay the parking charge notice. Payment can be made
online at www.parkdirectuk.com or by calling the automated payment line on 020237739587.
2. You may also make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) on the following website
www.theias.org quoting the Parking Charge Notice number and the Vehicle Registration number within
28 days from the date of this letter. If you opt for independent arbitration of your case, you will lose the
opportunity to pay the lower amount and £100.00 will be payable in the event your appeal is rejected.
Please note that the IAS is unable to waive a parking charge notice due to mitigating circumstances and
a decision will be based solely on the facts and evidence. You may appeal on any ground which
undermines the lawfulness of the charge or which otherwise affects the suggestion that you are liable
for it. Please note that if you opt for the IAS appeals process, all evidence collected relating to this case
will be submitted to the IAS. We would like to advise you that we do not enter into multiple appeals and
we will not enter into any further correspondence in relation to this appeal. If you choose to send us
another appeal, we are afraid that we are unable to log or answer it.

Car1980

Yes, they're claiming that the vehicle isn't to return within 2 hours.

The only person who could be party to that would be driver A, and they're presumably claiming that person should have told driver B not to return because they would breach the contract they have originally agreed.

Obviously lots of argument over whether this is in fact enforceable.

But they've undermined their own argument by stating "as YOU (Registered Keeper & Driver A) did return within the no return period, YOU (Registered Keeper & Driver A) became liable for the Charge advertised". 

This did not occur. Driver B returned.

This is important as under POFA as "the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay". 

They have stated driver A is liable and stated they have the "relevant obligation."

I would therefore wait until a Letter Before Action and then name Driver B as the driver. Driver A is taken out of the equation.

Then they go down a snake all the way to the start of the board and have to issue a Notice to Driver, new debt letters etc.

If they then decided to make a claim against Driver B there would be no contract and they have stated Driver A is liable and they'd be stymied because driver A wasn't the driver. Rock and a hard place.

At the end of the day they can just make a claim against the RK and it'll probably be discontinued anyway. So it's all moot even when you have a cast iron defence because you have to faff about dealing with a claim. But you have the opportunity to send them down a snake, and quite often they lose interest after that and don't even bother with a court claim.

AG01

Yes, I believe they would be separate contracts for each driver, should I appeal to the IAS or not bother?

kryten3000

I doubt the IAS would understand this complexity. 

Car1980

Nothing to lose, but I suspect the IAS would regurgitate the parking company's appeal response.

The problem is that if the IAS found in your favour that would mean every IPC parking company in the country would have all their non-return PCNs deemed unenforceable overnight. So they won't do it.

Coupon-mad

AG01 said:

Yes, I believe they would be separate contracts for each driver, should I appeal to the IAS or not bother?

Up to you if you would like to gather another joke (usually clearly biased & seemingly written partly by AI) IAS 'devision' to add to the 2025 IAS decisions thread.