Parking Charge Notice - Zodiac Close, Burnt Oak Options

[Lynxy]

Hello Everyone.

I visited my friends and coming back to my car, I found a parking ticket :


I thought it would be safe to park here (as there was no double yellows)


And on the adjacent side, there was double yellows:


Parking ticket:


The parking ticket says 'The vehicle was parked on private property in a manner where the driver agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage at the site' - No I did not agree!!

Parking sign:


I dont see what contravention I have broken, I didnt park on a double or single yellow. I didnt park on someones bay.
Can someone help?

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 11:11

[Advertisement]

[peterguk]

I dont see what contravention I have broken, I didnt park on a double or single yellow. I didnt park on someones bay.
Can someone help?

You're confusing public highway DYLs, SYLs and parking bays (which are policed by council CEOs) with an allegation you parked on private land.

Did you friend not warn you before you visited?

[Umkomaas]

I dont see what contravention I have broken, I didnt park on a double or single yellow. I didnt park on someones bay.

Seems that unless the vehicle was displaying a permit, it wasn't to be parked there at all. In the photo the car is parked right under a sign with those prohibitions on it. Ouch!

On the positive side of things, these are prohibiting signs and as such the 'contravention' is probably only trespass (and only the landowner can sue on that basis, not acparking company), but you will most likely have to convince a Judge of that. P&PM are litigious, so this could well get as far as a court hearing.

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata...Management.html

You need to make an initial appeal - there's a ready made one in post #1 of the following link. Do read that thread thoroughly so you understand the game in which you're now entangled.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

[ostell]

On the other hand at 1 o'clock in the morning then it would have been difficult to see those forbidding signs.

The signage is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[Umkomaas]

On the other hand at 1 o'clock in the morning then it would have been difficult to see those forbidding signs.

Ticket issued at 01:33am, precise time of actual parking is unclear.

[Lynxy]

Quick question - Can I ask for evidence of picture or video footage so as to identify the driver?
I dont want to say it is me, incase it is not.

Whats the best way to approach this?

[nosferatu1001]

Well, you can ask. they dont have to respond or comply.
Dont ask for evidence
Just ask for any photos they have that they intend to rely upon
Or just SAR them. THen they have to send EVERYTHING they have, and if they fail to include it in the response to the SAR, it cannot be used without them admitting to an offence under the DPA2018.

[Lynxy]

Well, you can ask. they dont have to respond or comply.
Dont ask for evidence
Just ask for any photos they have that they intend to rely upon
Or just SAR them. THen they have to send EVERYTHING they have, and if they fail to include it in the response to the SAR, it cannot be used without them admitting to an offence under the DPA2018.

Whats SAR? I looked in the acronyms page but I could not find anything to relate to this. Could you elaborate on it a little more? Whats the implications of 'SAR them?' Would it implicate myself and end up having 6 points and a £ine? Arrgh

[The Rookie]

Send them a SAR (Subject Access Request) requesting all data they hold on you, under the DPA 2018/GDPR.

[ostell]

SAR Try this link

This is a private company issuing invoices. They cannot add points to your licence and fine you.

So if you parked when it was not daylight then if you couldn't see the signs then there could be no contract in place and no charge, even though the signs are forbidding

[nosferatu1001]

Well, you can ask. they dont have to respond or comply.
Dont ask for evidence
Just ask for any photos they have that they intend to rely upon
Or just SAR them. THen they have to send EVERYTHING they have, and if they fail to include it in the response to the SAR, it cannot be used without them admitting to an offence under the DPA2018.

Whats SAR? I looked in the acronyms page but I could not find anything to relate to this. Could you elaborate on it a little more? Whats the implications of 'SAR them?' Would it implicate myself and end up having 6 points and a £ine? Arrgh

How on earth have you gotten 6 points?!?!? This is a PRIVATE INVOICE. It has NOTHING to do with failure to furnish!
Subject Access REquest. Lots of threads on this.

[Lynxy]

Hello All,

I have got parking charge through the post as follows:

Page 1 - https://imgur.com/nxbZJkV
Page 2 - https://imgur.com/3bGNQlF

Just doing some background reading and according to Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA, stipulates the that a set of information must be included in the parking ticket.
I am going to appeal on the grounds of:

Ground 1, When and how the parking rules were broken - They do not actually state this, all they say is 'parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge'

Do I have a chance at appealing and requesting POPLA code for review?

Let me know your thoughts please.

This post has been edited by Lynxy: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 13:56

[ostell]

So they have failed to properly to conform to the requirements of POFA.

You should now be reading paragraph 8.

8 (2) (a) No period of parking specified.
8 (2) (e) is not as required
8 (2) (f) is not in the requried format and doesn't define when the 28 days starts
8 (2) (h) creditor not identified.
8 (2) (i) date of sending not specified.

You get the idea?

The signs could also be considered to be forbidding in that parking is only offered to permit holders and so with without a permit then there can be no contract ot park in existence.

You can't appeal to POPLA, they are memebrs of the IPC so when your appeal fails you don't contact the IAS, you ignore and wait to see if you get a letter before Claim.

[Lynxy]

So they have failed to properly to conform to the requirements of POFA.

You should now be reading paragraph 8.

8 (2) (a) No period of parking specified.
8 (2) (e) is not as required
8 (2) (f) is not in the requried format and doesn't define when the 28 days starts
8 (2) (h) creditor not identified.
8 (2) (i) date of sending not specified.

You get the idea?

The signs could also be considered to be forbidding in that parking is only offered to permit holders and so with without a permit then there can be no contract ot park in existence.

You can't appeal to POPLA, they are memebrs of the IPC so when your appeal fails you don't contact the IAS, you ignore and wait to see if you get a letter before Claim.

Hi,

Thanks for your prompt response. So shall i respond with the argument above and await the response?

[ostell]

Tell them that they have failed to comply with POFA and therefore there can be no keeper luabilty and you do not expect to hear from them again. List all the failures. They will reject and offer IAS but dont bother as you will lose that.

Keep all the paperwork and come back if you get a Letter Before Claim

[Lynxy]

Hello All,

I have got parking charge through the post as follows:

Page 1 - https://imgur.com/nxbZJkV
Page 2 - https://imgur.com/3bGNQlF

Just doing some background reading and according to Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA, stipulates the that a set of information must be included in the parking ticket.
I am going to appeal on the grounds of:

Ground 1, When and how the parking rules were broken - They do not actually state this, all they say is 'parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge'

Do I have a chance at appealing and requesting POPLA code for review?

Let me know your thoughts please.

Would you say this is a Notice to Keeper? It does not directly say it is..can someone confirm?

[ostell]

Yes it is a notice to keeper after a windscreen ticket. Have you not appealed as suggested?

It should arrive between day 28 and 56. Did it?

[Lynxy]

I was waiting for NTK before appealing and just wanted to confirm.

[nosferatu1001]

A notice to keeper is easy to identify. It comes through the post, using the RK details obtained from the DVLA.

[Lynxy]

Hello,

I appealed using the info above.

They have finally replied back:

Page 1 - https://imgur.com/FE4usYw
Page 2 - https://imgur.com/27ML5wK
Page 3 - https://imgur.com/ImNnGuV

Shall I appeal to the IAS?