Hi All, your advice would be warmly received.

If a private parking company cannot identify who the driver of a vehicle was, can the owner of the vehicle ignore the PCN made out in their name?

Sorry for the long post, but I think I have covered all the basics. I am trying to fight this because it's just a money making scheme by the private parking company.

A car was parked in a private car park, the car park is shared by a number of retail units. The driver parked with a group of other vehicles in an area of the car park devoid of any white lines. On returning to the vehicle the driver found their car and all of the cars in that area with card-board notices under their windscreen wipers notifying them that there is reason to believe that the vehicle is parked contravening the advertised terms and conditions.

The driver ignored the card-board note but later the vehicle owner received a PCN that clarifies the alleged contravention as 'parked beyond the bay markings'. There is signage and the signage would be considered to be clear. What is not clear, is what parking is allowed in this part of the car park as there is a great swathe of car park with no markings on it.

The driver is not happy about this as the parking official did not bother checking the entire car park; the official lazily slapped these card-board notices to the few cars in this un-marked area, took photos and then drove away. The car, and other cars, were not blocking exits/entrances, they were just parked neatly with a group of other vehicles on black tarmac. To add to the annoyance, this area is parked on daily by lots of cars and nothing has been changed over years of parking to notify drivers that this is not desired, so this is purely a private company making money out of trying to enforce contract terms and conditions around a piece of tarmac with no lines on it.

To date the owner of the vehicle responded online to the PCN to start the appeal by requesting the parking company to inform who was driving. The car has multiple registered drivers and our understanding (possibly wrong here) is that in contract law the parking company need to name the person they have a contract with. Is this correct? The owner of the vehicle has now had a further email as follows:

-----------------------------
Please note that responsibility for this PCN lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention was observed. However, we are unable to ascertain who the driver was from the information given within your appeal.
In order for us to process your appeal correctly, please follow the below instruction. The following options are available:
1. Notify the driver of the vehicle that they will need to appeal to us directly, including their FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS within 14 days.
2. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf. This statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS. This needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a stamp.
3. Pay the PCN. Payments can be made online at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk by following the links for "Pay Now", or over the phone by calling XXXXXXXXXX by using a valid Credit or Debit Card. (If paying by Credit Card a surcharge of £1.00 will apply).[/i]
------------------------------[/i]

Is the current method of appeal valid? Can the vehicle owner continue to state that it is the parking company's responsibility to identify the driver and therefore respond to the above email stating that unless the parking company name the driver, then there is nothing the vehicle owner can do?

Many thanks.

IF the parking company has complied with the POFA2012, then the Keeper of the vehicle is liable for the drivers actions.

Using a suitable technique, take a scan or photo of the PCN, REMOVE ALL DETAILS that identify particulars to that PCN such as ticket number, your address, any and all references and post it up using TinyPic.

Follow topic closely as if you have not completely taken all details off which may identify you, you will be ask to take it down immediately.

This is VCS/Excel's latest attempt to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act - for 'keeper liability'.

There's a couple of recent threads on this. I do not believe this method does comply but nothing definitive yet.

Front page of PCN


Back page of PCN