What's the alleged offence?

No.

Only your alleged actions are under consideration. It can be considered 'careless/inconsiderate' driving for passing a cyclist too close. 1.5m isn't actually law but the Highway Code would be considered as a benchmark of how a safe and competent driver would overtake.

One assumes they've reviewed the incident and believe an offence has been committed. You are not presumed guilty, but making statements like the above won't be helpful.

You can request the footage but prior to court proceedings they don't have to provide it.

Chances are they'll offer a course or fixed penalty over a full on prosecution.

Generally worth leaving blank.

At this stage they are only request the driver identity.

I suspect they have video footage - but you may not be entitled to see it at this stage.

You contact the claimant (or legal rep) directly. It's an 'out of court settlement'.

As noted above, do so under a 'without prejudice, save as to costs' basis. (If it does go to court then you can whip this out after judgment to hopefully ensure you avoid costs)

But I suspect they won't accept less than £150. (Remember some of the court costs have actually been incurred by them)

Those are all fixed costs, all allowed. The hearing fee is on top (if it progresses to a hearing).

Statutory interest is allowed - up to the Judge of what's allowed.


Assuming they have complied with PoFA then the keeper is liable for the driver's unpaid parking charge.

I would never admit to part of the claim - dispute the lot. (Poor signage etc.)

The £100 is an 'agreed' amount that they can charge as a deterrent against breach of contract [ParkingEye v Beavis 2015]. It is unlikely you'll be able to challenge that component - it's not an actual loss/damage.

However, the £70 is a 'made up' figure that is an alleged 'debt collection' charge - for which they haven't actually incurred and should be challenged - most Judges do not allow it.


It depends. The only other fixed cost is the hearing fee (£27) if it goes that far. They will try and attempt to recover the charges for the legal representative to attend but at small claims this is highly unlikely unless the Judge is convinced of 'unreasonable behaviour'.

That means even if they 'win' the cost of the rep will likely outweigh their gains - for which gives you something of an advantage if negotiating. (Bear in mind the £70 too)

The charge will have been issued for one of the following:
1. Incorrect VRM
2. Incorrect period paid for / late payment /overstayed
3. Some other error (machine 'malfunction')

However, they are incorrectly stating their legal position.

The NtK states that <blah> <blah> we have a right to recover from YOU (i.e. the RK). They don't.

The date of the notice is 14 days after the date of the event - so it's impossible for them to comply with PoFA to hold the keeper liable. (It cannot arrive within the 14 days necessary to comply)

It's a shame you don't come here earlier as there was an dead easy way to cancel it. Now they won't - they'll only tell you that it's too late to do anything other than to pay.

Personally, I would put in writing to them that you cannot be liable for the charge as they did not comply with PoFA. Complain to the DVLA that they are misrepresenting their legal position as they can only pursue the driver - the DVLA have allowed the release of personal data which has subsequently been used without fully complying with 'reasonable cause'. Complain to the BPA too. Make yourself a pain as it may force them to cancel it.

That's all you can do. They won't go away and they may eventually sue (they have 6 years to do so).


Indeed, and stating they can...

I think you mean driver as they've written to the (registered) keeper.

If was dated to arrive within the 14 days (on presumption of 1st class post?).

They won't cancel it on the basis it arrived 'late'.

Unless the form explicitly offers a 'plea bargain' then I wouldn't offer that at this stage.


Nope.


Not sure where you're heading with this - you HAVE to plead guilty to the speeding offence to see the s172 dropped.

You could ask for them to consider a fixed penalty equivalent sentence (and no costs order) but that's a stretch given the circumstances leading up the prosecution.

PCN's can be issued either by placing a ticket on the car at the time or via post.

However, if they are seeking keeper liability then there are certain requirements to do so - otherwise, they can still pursue the driver (but would have to show on the balance of probabilities who that was).

If direct via post then it must arrive within 14 days.
If after PCN, then they must wait 28 days to access the DVLA and it has to arrive within 56 days.
(On top of other requirements, such as period of parking etc. etc.)


This could put a slightly different angle on it. Is it registered to company name only?

Are you the registered keeper? If not, they may have gone elsewhere first? (e.g. lease firm)

It has been known for PCN's pinned to cars to 'go missing'. Possibly subject a SAR to get all photo's.

No. They will reject any appeal you make.

After all, you admit parking in breach of the terms?

They are litigious so are likely to sue, especially for multiple tickets.

I would note that the signs do not make it explicit that the £100 charge is per 24 hours. It only says 'Hours of enforcement' are 24 hours.

If they car was parking then it can only breach the terms once. However, they won't agree and will reject every appeal.

POPLA may support the above though.

They don't have to supply any. If you don't believe it's your vehicle then you always have the option to reject any out of court disposal and take it to court.


Again, they don't have to.


You need to use reasonable diligence to identify the driver. Asking for a photo won't be enough.

If you do not know who was driving and cannot identify them with the aforementioned diligence then you can go to court and attempt to convince the bench. Failure will be 6 points and around £1k in court costs etc.


No - as above.


It's a course or fixed penalty at worst if you can work out who was driving...

They seem to sit on them until right up to the last few days... You can hear up to a few weeks after the date too...

You've taken it as sarcastic - it wasn't (and to be fair you asked its relevance). Why would you want to tell the court you've been caught a 3rd time? (And how it could be perceived)

...they did not have to respond at all.

Anyway, you are now in a corner. You CANNOT challenge the speeding offence, nor any potential 'Late NIP'. It seems you openly ignored the s172 request against better advice.

As they do not appear to have any evidence as to the driver then the speeding offence cannot be convicted unless you plead guilty to it (which potentially makes it a 'bargaining' chip)

You have the following options:
1. Plead guilty to both offences via post and bag at least 9 points and significant fines & costs (Likely to be £600+) - not a recommended option!
2. Defend the s172 at court. Assuming you are the person keeping the vehicle (which seems so as the hirer) then you would have to show you did not know who was driving and could not identify them after using reasonable diligence. Failure is 6 points and fines & costs likely to exceed £1k.
3. If you were driving then offer to plead guilty to the speeding offence if they drop the s172 charge. Normal sentencing is likely for the offence, but we don't know the speed - so it could be 3-6 points and the fine will be income dependent along with surcharge (40% of the fine) and costs around £85.

The last 2 options will require court attendance of course.

What offence(s) are being prosecuted?

If they complied with PoFA then they can pursue you (presumably the registered keeper) for the driver's unpaid parking charge.

But you haven't given us a lot to go on... I presume you ignored it?

How do you know this? As per your other comment, the 14 days only applies to the registered keeper, i.e. the first NIP only...


Close... It's 79mph.


Rogue?


Not sure why - you were clearly exceeding the limit.

Well there isn't a white line under the car - see here.

The question would be of the definition of a 'marked bay'. (I suspect there isn't a precise definition on the signs) - spaces are usually marked by white perimeter lines. Clearly this is an 'end space' - if it was such a big issue with people parking left of bay then the kerb shouldn't be flat - as per the bay opposite (here).

Ultimately, it's incredibly picky but bread and butter private parking... ker-ching!

Indeed, no guarantees. Beavis essentially allowed the charge to be a deterrent against breaching terms of the contract - basically it doesn't have to be a 'loss'.

But there's still the question of commercial justification and possibly de minimis too.

No, other than you seem to be routinely ignoring speed limits?

No surprises in their reply.

Yup, have an initial bite at the cherry to see if they'll award 6 points...

They are more likely to adjourn for a hearing to consider a ban though as you note.