UK Parking Patrol: 19 Minute Overstay – WIN

SUMMARY

Private parking ticket via Post
WIN at the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) stage

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) DETAILS

Reason: Exceeded Maximum Stay Period (ANPR) – Overstay Duration: 19 minutes 
Private Parking Company: UK Parking Patrol Office (UKPPO)


SITUATION

The Registered Keeper received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the post, for the vehicle overstaying 19 minutes in a shopping complex car park. The vehicle was caught via a Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera, which records entry/exit times.


The initial strategy was to appeal on the grounds of grace period. However, grace periods from an ANPR camera is seen as “at the discretion of the Landlord/Landowner” (as the British Parking Association explains here). Besides arguing 19 minutes grace period would be a bit of a stretch.

UKPPO made a clinical error in the PCN issued to the keeper through the post; known as Notice to Keeper (NtK).

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 explains that, if no payment or appeal is made within 28 days and as the registered keeper you do not supply the drivers information, (in other words you completely ignore the PCN), the registered keeper is liable for all charges. The key being here being registered keeper liability. 

In the past it was different, private parking companies only had the right to pursue drivers not registered keepers. This was a massive loophole since the registered keepers would not supply the driver details (too right!), so the private companies could never recover any parking fines (because they had no legal grounds to go after the registered keeper). 

So…what was the clinical error we hear you say?

Well, in the actual Notice to Keeper (NtK) they sent through the post, it stated they will hold the driver liable (not the registered keeper) for all charges if it is ignored…result!  

In theory because of this, we could have simply ignored the notice and they can never recover that money, because they failed to hold keeper liability…but we didn’t because we wanted to go through the process.

Yes something as small as this mistake can legally put you in a winning position.

FIRST APPEAL
An internal appeal was lodged on the grounds of the clinical error and the grace period, the key in the appeal was to NEVER state who the driver was and respond with just ‘Yours Faithfully the Registered Keeper’.

It is completely fine to admit any correspondence is coming from the registered keeper, since they have already the details from the DVLA, and issued the fine through the post.

The appeal got rejected. Its important to note, privtate parking companies almost all the time reject appeals, even when it is clear cut. So we wrote up the appeal for the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE
UK Parking Patrol Office (UKPPO) is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC). Their Independent Appeals Service has a reputation of a ‘Kangaroo Court’.

One tip we always recommend is to have the appeal written up and ready, but always submit it on the last day you are entitled to (I.e you have 28 days to appeal, send it on the 27th day). This is because it entices more errors from enforcement authorities (perfect example of this, is within this case study which proved a winning strategy).

Within the rightful appeals period we received another letter from UKPPO.

Another result! They fell for the bait. 

This was an attempt to reissue the NtK. The cheeky buggers read the appeal point of not holding keeper liability (the internal appeal that got rejected) changed the wording of the liability to the registered keeper and re-sent the NtK.

Funny right. A clear sign of an intimidation tactic which would have worked for most people, but not us.

Because this re-issue of the NtK was outside of the 14-day period to hold the keeper liable, it is invalid. This further helped the appeal and confirmed their mistake of not holding the keeper liable.   


RESULT

We sent my appeal through the IAS procedure…and won! 

The reason being UKPPO cowardly backed out, since they knew they would lose. 

So moral of the story is…never give up if you have clear cut grounds.