What is the "period of parking" in POFA, Using "period" for technical dismissal of PNC under POFA Options

[Goneroaming]

Hi to all I'm a new member,
I just recently got three PNC's notice to keeper over a two day period, total of 300 GBP reduced to 180 GBP if paid in two weeks, at a private car park. The driver had paid for parking for all day and displayed the parking tickets on the windscreen and I have managed to get them as evidence. There were three because they didn't put a ticket on the windscreen. Instead they took pictures by an attendant and sent them to me, as the keeper, in the post arriving a week later so the driver at the time had no chance to correct any error in their use of the car park. I am hoping to get a dismissal of all three PNC's under technical points of law from POFA Keeper liability schedule 4 not being served correctly but I've prepared my appeal using the Money saving expert template that lets me hit them with everything under the sun that I think is wrong with their notice to keeper claim against me. The car was apparently parked in a prohibited area the exact wording on the PCN is:

"XX) parked in a restricted/prohibited area" ----- XX) is a number from their list of possible reasons for issuing a PCN - I think that is correct.

My arguments for the PCN notice to keeper being dismissed are as follows, the ones I'm hoping are strongest come first.

1. The PNC states the day, date and time of the infringement but not the period ie not from 10:00 to 10:30 Hr and I think that this is explicitly required in the PNC notice to keeper otherwise they have "technically" not met their legal requirements, am I correct?

2. While I'm aware that the technicality of the fine not being a true estimate of the beneficial loss is no longer a technicality that always works once again I'd challenge their charges on the basis that they have no idea how long the car was parked and did not put any period of parking on the PCN so how could they give a "true estimate of the beneficial loss without knowing the time period of the inappropriate parking? Does this sound reasonable to any experts out there?

3. I read an interpretation of "Notice to keeper schedule 4" on the internet that said they cannot issue a repeat PNC for the same offence inside a 24 Hr period but I've also read items that refute this......I don't know but I've made the argument anyway.

4. The area the care was parked in was paved with light and dark paving stones and the dark paving stones appeared to make parking bay lines in the area that the car was parked in whereas other areas of the car park had parking bays marked out in white lines on tarmac. The areas with white lines marked on tarmac had, for the disabled spaces, yellow hatching lines on the ground adjacent to the parking bays for areas you should not park on....that is a reasonable interpretation of the yellow line hatching, isn't it? There was no yellow hatching on the mixed light and dark stone paving slabs or it would, apparently, have been obvious not to have parked on them. There is a line/rule on the usual board of reg's you have to adhere to and one line said:

"Where bays are present park only between the lines of a single marked bay".

A reasonable interpreation of this is to mean park in a bay if that is what is marked but if there are no marking on a part of the car park then you don't need to park in a bay.....To explain there were bays marked on the tarmac area adjacent to the building but just two or three metres on the other side of the access road there is an area with no white line-markings but as stated above the dark stone slabs appeared to mark out parking bays so the car was parked inside what appeared to be a parking bay, and so have several other customers. I took pictures to show the common error/confusion engendered by the vague wording of that rule/regulation. I find this arguement a bit weak myself but there are supporting factors to indicate that their operation is confusing and sloppy. The supporting info is that the ticket issuing machine has four steps of instructions on how to obtain and pay for a ticket but the instructions do not represent the real practice of obtaining a ticket. The instructions require a user to input the registation number and then identify the car from the picture shown on the screen. It is impossible to do this because there is no keypad to input a registration number and no screen to show a picture of the car entering the carpark so any ticket issued doesn't have the car reg on it and clearly it is necessary to ignore the instructions on the ticket machine as they do not apply. Given that some of the instructions provided to customers is clearly wrong and a customer has to use their common sense/judgement to obtain a ticket just by paying the money I don't see why they can be selective on how a customer interprets that specific line/rule on the board as long as the interpretation is reasonable and not completely without logic. If some parts of the car park are marked with bays and if areas adjacent to those bays are marked with yellow hatching to prohibit parking then if other areas of the car park are not marked with bays and do not have yellow hatching an interpretation that those areas are still available for parking is reasonable, does anyone agree? Incidentlay I went to the carpark today and took pictures of someone else who had done exactly the same and not parked in bays that were marked with white lines even though bays marked with white lines were available!

5. Finally the first of the PCN's notice to keeper I was sent showed a car but in the pictures it is not possible to tell that the registration is of my car. The PCN has my registration typed correctly on it but none of the pictures that are in the PCN are clear enough to show the registation on the car. One picture is just white because the flash was so bright and the other the picture is too dark to read the registration number. Can they get away with that? Surely they must send me photographic evidence that is visible/legible?

Well I'm exhausted and I hope I haven't bored you all but more than that I hope I'm right in the first three at least as that should squash the PCN's outright - I hope?
Your comments and advice are welcomed.

Sorry I forgot that there was another sign saying "no parking" I'm going to try to attach it but as a new free member I'm not sure I can. I didn't give it any weight because as well as saying "no parking" it went on to say that you must pay the fee and follow the rules on the main board so once again confusing and conflicting info.

This post has been edited by Goneroaming: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 - 23:52

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

If the identity of the driver is known then any attempts to use POFA to appeal are bound to fail. Edit so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred

The sign is a prohibiting sign in that there is no offer of a contract to park and without a contract their can be no breach and therefore no claim.

There is no limit to the number of PCNs that can be issued in 24 hours.

If this is late at night then if the signs weren't illuminated then how can any alleged contract be created with the driver if the signs cannot be seen. Get your own photos, without flash, at the same time after sunset.

Loss is not an argument after Beavis.

Pictures would be taken with ANPR cameras which use infra red for the number plate

Post up the PCN using the imgur site and pist links here

[Jlc]

They will not squash these on your points and the IAS neither.

They will almost certainly raise a court claim so start preparing for that.

With a 'no parking' situation the actual period of parking is going to be less interesting. It's usually stayed as a 'period preceding...'.

[Goneroaming]

Hi Jic and Ostell,

Thank you both for your input. I've tried to put in answers to questions from Ostell, I hope that there is more to the period then Jic has said but I'm working at this for the first time and you may both be much more experienced.

If I have no chance to win in an appeal I don't think that I will be going to court especially if that means losing the right to reduced charges if I fight it?

Here is a scan of the PNC in which the registration cannot be seen. Hosted on an image site er I had to kind of cut out all the details of the pictures so that the company wouldn't be able to find it anywhere

To simplify the posting I wrote as if I had been the driver but the driver was not me or my family.

The official board and ticket machine were lit up, I think that they were from what I was told. I have attached a scan of the first PCN that does not show the license plate clearly. The instructions on the reverse say that you can appeal online but I would rather appeal in paper. Can they insist that I only submit my appeal online?

I am not sure what the answer to the question about the period is? I thought that if they did not state a start and an end time that they had not fulfilled their obligation required in "notice to keeper" to say what period the alleged offense was committed in. I got the quotation directly from the statue from the .gov.org website.

(2) The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

The PCN does not say "the period preceding."

I have posted the PCN front and back, the official sign that was visible as far as I can remember you may have to zoom in to see the line about parking in bay's so I think that there was a contract.

Although the instructions for obtaining a ticket imply that there are ANPR camera's in fact there are none. All the pictures were taken by a parking attendant not an ANPR. They have no evidence at all, as far as I am aware, of what time the car was parked and what time the car left.

PCN images are here:

[The Rookie]

It's usually stayed as a 'period preceding...'.

PoFA compliance requires ‘period of parking’ though....

[Jlc]

It's usually stayed as a 'period preceding...'.

PoFA compliance requires ‘period of parking’ though....

No arguing with that.

There’s the often quoted bit about ANPR deltas are not such but unless the defendant can show a valid reason for a significant excess (I.e. above grace) then Judges do not dismiss on this.

Likewise, for no parking situations the period of parking is often not known. So if a car is found in breach then the time of detection will likely be sufficient. Again, Judges do not dismiss on this alone.

There are arguments about forbidding signs and mileage does vary on this.

What is clear is that the parking company nor the IAS will uphold and of this. With multiple tickets the chances of a claim are high (probably issued separately!).

The additional ‘legal’ costs have been struck down at some courts recently.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 07:00

[The Rookie]

It's usually stayed as a 'period preceding...'.

PoFA compliance requires ‘period of parking’ though....

There’s the often quoted bit about ANPR deltas are not such but unless the defendant can show a valid reason for a significant excess (I.e. above grace) then Judges do not dismiss on this.

Likewise, for no parking situations the period of parking is often not known. So if a car is found in breach then the time of detection will likely be sufficient. Again, Judges do not dismiss on this alone.

This shouldn't be a case of dismissal, its a clear non compliance with PoFA, so there should be no keeper liability (whether a driver were liable is a different question all together). That said it's a clear screw up by parliament as it's a requirement pretty much impossible to ever achieve.

[Jlc]

I totally agree but can only go on reality... (In regards to whether keeper liability is allowed)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 08:10

[The Rookie]

Will need an appeal then, it's not like PoFA isn't crystal clear.

[Goneroaming]

Thanks Jic and Rookie,

I'll appeal the tickets and I'll let you know how I get on. The only thing is that I'm going to throw the entire book at them with every argument I can muster so not sure if we will know exactly which argument might sway them or that might scare them.

[Jlc]

You won't scare them - they rarely seem deterred from pushing to a hearing.

[nosferatu1001]

Why would you scare them?
Everyone involved gets paid to do this.

[Goneroaming]

Will need an appeal then, it's not like PoFA isn't crystal clear.

We appealed and they replied refusing the appeal. We made several points on which they made no comments they simply said: "We will only answer pertinent points at this stage". They ignored entirely the best point we felt we made that they did not comply to the letter of the Notice to Keeper as per the POFA act Schedule 4 2012 becuase the PCN did not state the period of parking as POFA explicitly requires them to do. They entirely ignored that part of the letter.

They pointed out that we appeal to the IAS then the reduced charge of £60 per ticket will be withdrawn and that if we lose we would pay £100 per ticket, three tickets. This is a bit scary but they simply ignored this point and in addition they simply ignored the arguments we made that the signage was not clear and gave confusing and conflicting information that required the driver to make their own interpretation of the posted regulations/rules.

In this respect it makes me think that they have not come across this argument before and they are simply trotting out standard phrases and arguments that they use in letters to everyone. We think that refusing to answer the points that we made shows that they are not sure or don't know if they would win or if we would win in arbitration but the power seems to be on their side with this.

We are inclined to take it to IAS but we wanted to know if anyone can tell us if we lose will the IAS automatically allow them to charge the full amount given that they did not respond to our points of law and so we were forced to go to IAS to find out their argument against the point of law that we made ie that they did not comply exactly with the POFA requirements. We are worried that with this being a technicality they may not find for us and we will pay £300 instead of £180. Has anyone experience of losing at IAS and the IAS only allowing the lower charge to be levied?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can comment and help.

[Jlc]

Has anyone experience of losing at IAS and the IAS only allowing the lower charge to be levied?

Thousands to their cost! You will lose and the reduced charge will be lost.

These matters are only dealt with at court.

[ostell]

The recommendation is to NOT appeal to the IAS. They guarantee 85% fail rate to their members.

Of course they will ignore your good arguments, acepting appeals is not a good business model.

The IAS was set up by the same solicitors that set up the IPC. The connection is not quite so obvious now as they've been working hard to hide it.

You sit tight and ignore the debt collector letters, but keep them. Come back when/if you get a letter before claim