Whole Period Of Parking Not Paid For - Falmouth Maritime Car Park |
Whole Period Of Parking Not Paid For - Falmouth Maritime Car Park |
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 10:29
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
Hi everyone,
I recently received a PCN from Premier Park addressed to me for leaving the car park after the driver's ticket ran out. I have attached the redacted letter below. Any advice would be greatly appreciated? Many Thanks. This post has been edited by md89: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:16 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 10:29
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 11:21
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Edit the first post so that the identity of the creditor cannot be inferred. Use "the driver ....." etc.
You have redacted the dates. WHat are they? Quick glance and: 9 (2) (e), the invitation, is not in the format required. 9 (2) (a) period of parking not given. Driving in front of cameras is not parking. 9 (2) (h) the creditor has not been identified (I couldn't see it). Keeper cannot be held liable. Is this land subject to byelaws? This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 11:24 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 12:08
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Edit the first post so that the identity of the creditor cannot be inferred. Use "the driver ....." etc. What’s the strategy here then? Presumably the driver is never going to be identified at any point, so does that mean that the defence is going to be a purely technical one based on non-compliance with POFA? Presumably the OP won’t be advised to put forward any witness statement as to what occurred on the day or, for example, the condition of any signs at the location? What will you advise the OP if the claim form alleges that he was the driver or driver/keeper of the vehicle? What will you advise he does if asked in court whether he was the driver? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:19
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
(post deleted)
This post has been edited by md89: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:35 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 14:34
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
You have redacted the dates. WHat are they? It says in the guidelines for posting photo's to delete any information like dates and times, if knowing the dates helps I can certainly PM you them. Quick glance and: 9 (2) (e), the invitation, is not in the format required. 9 (2) (a) period of parking not given. Driving in front of cameras is not parking. 9 (2) (h) the creditor has not been identified (I couldn't see it). Apologies, I'm knew to the forum and all this, where are these points and clauses pulled from? Is this land subject to byelaws? I've had a look on the forum and found this, but I'm unaware as to how byelaws would help the case of driver/RK. Falmouth Maritime Car Park Byelaws You reply is hugely appreciated, again apologies for my further questions, I'm happy to put in the leg work, I just don't know where to look at the moment. This post has been edited by md89: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 16:56 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 15:01
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
One of the conditions of being able to invoke the Protection of Freedoms Act in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper is that the land in question is 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4.
The land is deemed NOT to be relevant land if (among other things) there is already existing legislation relating to parking governing the land. This includes Byelaws which make reference to parking. So, they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper, and must pursue the driver, who hopefully they don't know, and you are under no legal obligation to tell them. This post has been edited by ManxRed: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 15:02 -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 16:52
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
One of the conditions of being able to invoke the Protection of Freedoms Act in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper is that the land in question is 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4. The land is deemed NOT to be relevant land if (among other things) there is already existing legislation relating to parking governing the land. This includes Byelaws which make reference to parking. So, they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper, and must pursue the driver, who hopefully they don't know, and you are under no legal obligation to tell them. Thanks ManxRed. The only relevant information found in the Falmouth Maritime Car Park Bye-laws state... Unauthorised parking of vehicles 4 2. (1) Any person leaving a vehicle in a parking place on harbour premises shall display on that vehicle a ticket issued by the Commissioners authorising the parking of that vehicle during such time as may be specified on that ticket. (2) A person shall not leave a vehicle in a parking place on the harbour premises for longer than the time specified on the ticket issued in respect of that vehicle. Does the RK/driver need to notify them of their stance on this or do they just ignore the letters now? This post has been edited by md89: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 16:59 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 20:06
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Sorry, here's POFA, you can reference the points.
If you have a map that shows the car park was in the byelaws area then you can write to them, as the keeper, pointing out that this is relevant land and therefore POFA does not apply and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to you |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 21:03
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
Sorry, here's POFA, you can reference the points. If you have a map that shows the car park was in the byelaws area then you can write to them, as the keeper, pointing out that this is relevant land and therefore POFA does not apply and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to you Thanks Ostell. I'm going to speak to Falmouth Harbour Commissioners tomorrow to try and get a copy of the map which shows the jurisdiction limits for the bye-laws. If this is the case and it is relevant land, although POFA doesn't apply, in the Falmouth Harbour Bye-Laws it states "Unauthorised parking of vehicles 4 2. (1) Any person leaving a vehicle in a parking place on harbour premises shall display on that vehicle a ticket issued by the Commissioners authorising the parking of that vehicle during such time as may be specified on that ticket. (2) A person shall not leave a vehicle in a parking place on the harbour premises for longer than the time specified on the ticket issued in respect of that vehicle." Does this not pretty much state that the RK/driver must purchase a ticket and leave before the ticket runs out, which is what Premier Park have said the RK/driver have fallen foul of? |
|
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2019 - 23:08
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
Does this not pretty much state that the RK/driver must purchase a ticket and leave before the ticket runs out, which is what Premier Park have said the RK/driver have fallen foul of? It says that the driver must purchase a ticket - says nothing about the RK. And if the driver violated the bylaws, that's a potential criminal case for magistrates court - that's no reason for the driver or RK to pay some private parking company for some alleged contracual dispute. The mere existence of the bylaws stops the PPC from being able to pursue the RK under POFA, and unless you tell them who the driver is (and you won't do that), then they're on a sticky wicket. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 06:41
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
Does this not pretty much state that the RK/driver must purchase a ticket and leave before the ticket runs out, which is what Premier Park have said the RK/driver have fallen foul of? It says that the driver must purchase a ticket - says nothing about the RK. And if the driver violated the bylaws, that's a potential criminal case for magistrates court - that's no reason for the driver or RK to pay some private parking company for some alleged contracual dispute. The mere existence of the bylaws stops the PPC from being able to pursue the RK under POFA, and unless you tell them who the driver is (and you won't do that), then they're on a sticky wicket. Thanks Sheffield Dave. I guess my last two questions are, 1) Should the RK now respond to the PCN stating that the RK will not be providing the drivers details (does there need to be a reason why) and that because of the bye-laws in place there are no grounds for Premier Park to pursue the RK under Section 4 of POFA. Should this be done imminently or wait for further notices from Premier Park? 2) Is there a template or example letter covering all these points anybody knows of to make sure no points are missed out when appealing to Premier? Many thanks to everyone for all their help so far. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 06:55
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Is this any use for when you have confirmed byelaws?
Dear Sirs, I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx The car park appears to be not relevant land as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, being subject the byelaws of the Falmouth Harbour Authority. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper. Even if it were relevant land then you have failed several other requirements of POFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so. Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct. Yours etc This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 06:56 |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 07:18
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
Is this any use for when you have confirmed byelaws? Dear Sirs, I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx The car park appears to be not relevant land as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, being subject the byelaws of the Falmouth Harbour Authority. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper. Even if it were relevant land then you have failed several other requirements of POFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so. Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct. Yours etc Ostell you've been a huge help! Thank you. What are the other several other requirements of POFA they have failed on? Just trying to make sure I have all boxes covered before I send anything. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 07:20
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
post #2 ?
|
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 09:52
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
|
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 10:43
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
So, after some digging, the Falmouth Maritime Car Park doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the bye-laws so it would seem as this is a non-starter.
I have therefore looked at the other failed requirements listed, and as far as I can tell: 9 (2) (e) it would appear that they have formatted it correctly according to POFA 9 (2) (a) they seem to have failed on this. the pictures only show the vehicle moving, not stationary. they do provide times that would suggest parking was overstayed. 9 (2) (h) are premier park not the creditors? or is that National Maritime Museum who own the car park? |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 11:23
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Sorry 9 (2) (e) is not in the format required. Where is the word "invite"? The start of section 2 says "must" so reading as a whole means "must state".
9 (2) (a) is still not a period of PARKING. You have confusion about who the creditor is, which is why they are required to make that statement. |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 11:45
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
Sorry 9 (2) (e) is not in the format required. Where is the word "invite"? The start of section 2 says "must" so reading as a whole means "must state". 9 (2) (a) is still not a period of PARKING. You have confusion about who the creditor is, which is why they are required to make that statement. Ok thanks. I had no idea how important and specific contract wording is, you have to be so careful it seems. Would this be an appropriate letter to send to Premier? |
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 12:59
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
That should do
|
|
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2019 - 17:19
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 27 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,130 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:56 |