Thank you! Jopson v Homeguard seems very relevant to my situation. "The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice." I will continue to ignore them unless / until I get a Letter of Claim.

Thanks for taking the effort to look on Streetview and provide these comments. I have had another look also and it's still unclear where else one should stop to make a (reasonably heavy) delivery (thanks for highlighting the distinction between parking and delivering). The NTK includes date/times and photos of the vehicle entering and exiting the site. I wonder if the fleecers also monitor whether a car has stopped or if they issue NTKs to all non-permit-holding traffic passing through. Interesting point about courts relying on contract law and the absence of a contract on their signage. Yes, my friend could provide a statement confirming where he lives and the circumstances mentioned above. Great, I look forward to ignoring their threatening correspondence and will follow your advice. Thanks again.

Thanks for your thoughts and advice. I am glad that I didn't appeal. This was my first and only visit to the Oakland Quay area. It is a bit of a narrow maze around there and this was the only place I could find to do a quick drop-off to the reception of a residential building. Looking at Google Maps, I can see a couple of signs that say permit holders only but I did not notice these on the dark winter's night in question and there were no markings on the road. Attached is an image which shows the approximate location and the signs from Google Maps. Interestingly one sign says "Parking Charge Notice enquiries cannot be dealt with on site. Please follow the appeals process detailed on original correspondence." Does this suggest that some PCNs are issued there and then? The PCN issued to me was via post (ANPR). GMaps Images.pdf

Brilliant, thank you!

Hi folks, I would be sincerely grateful for your advice again having been hit with another Private PCN (this time on the outskirts of Canary Wharf). 1 Date of the infringement 18/11/2022 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 12/22/2022 (24 days) 3 Date received I forgot to note 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Not sure, but I don't think so 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes (2 photos in NTK) 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N 7 Who is the parking company? Smart Parking Ltd 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Oakland Quay London E14 Google Maps GOO.GL London For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. I cannot find any reference to an appeals body, just POPLA if Smart Parking reject an appeal. …….... Additional info: - I parked at the location for just under 15 minutes in order to drop off a moving-in gift for a friend who had just moved into the area. - Based on previous advice received from this brilliant forum and reading other threads including this one, I have ignored all correspondence so far. - I have been advised by Debt Recovery Plus that I have missed 6 "payment deadlines". - I have now received an "Unpaid Debt - Reminder Notice" from CST Law which says, "If you do not pay by 23rd June 2023, please keep Debt Recovery Plus Ltd updated as to your current address to ensure that any court documents are correctly directed to you. This is vital as a County Court Judgment (CCJ) can have a serious effect on a person's credit rating." - My understanding is that the letter from CST Law is not an LBC and I wondered if I need to do anything at this stage or just ignore some more? Many thanks! Oakland Quay E14 PCN 18-11-22.pdf

Ah, all clear now. Thank you. They say hindsight is 20/20 and had I found this brilliant forum earlier, I definitely wouldn't have appealed (especially since the initial Notice to Keeper letter was received after 14 days). Anyway, as dx100uk mentions, the right tool was applied to reach a successful conclusion and all the helpful advice received along with this excellent summary by lookinforinfo will hopefully help others in the future.

Thank you.

A shared victory since it relied on your expert advice! Will do, thanks. I have informed Debt Recovery Plus by phone, perhaps I should put something in writing as well (snail mail as there are no contact email addresses in their letter). Final question - A previous comment in this thread pointed out that: Nexus are not abiding by the BPA Code of Conduct by demanding the driver's details. It is also not complying with the Law by asking for the details. Out of interest, if the fleecers wanted to pursue a legitimate claim should they be pursuing the keeper only then? If so, what if the vehicle was registered to a keeper (eg. driver's spouse or parent) who wasn't present when parking?

I have received a reply from the landowners to say the PCN has been cancelled. Many thanks to all the friendly and helpful comments above that made this possible (Special thanks to FTMDave!).

The fleecers not having a hope is exactly what I was hoping to hear - thank you! Tried calling the landowners today. Was transferred and then strangely reached a generic mobile phone voicemail message. Will give it a go by email.

Apologies for the confusion. The keeper wasn't present but the letter went to them (via ANPR/DVLA). I thought those present would need to appeal rather than the keeper.

Great to hear! Sounds very Cluedo-like! I think it was Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick. In all seriousness, that is right. Old Jim is "The Appellant" who received emails following the online appeal. Letters have been going to John Mysterio as the keeper.

I was mildly concerned but now just very amused - thank you! Correct - I am not the keeper of the vehicle or "The Appellant". I submitted the appeal on behalf of the appellant who is elderly and not internet savvy and also not the keeper. I can understand the confusion... The email reply to the appeal from Nexus was delivered to me due to alias forwarding - ie. appellant@domain.co.uk used in the appeal is just a domain alias for me@domain.co.uk. Also, the driver and I share the same first name initial and surname. So I replied from my email and signed off as [First name initial]. [Surname] which could be either me or the appellant. I wrote "I can confirm that the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred is the same as those listed in your original letter." I remember thinking Nexus' insistence on naming the driver was strange hence some ambiguity was maintained (with the above two lines). However, I made a genuine mistake in mixing up the keeper and appellant here. I hope that clarifies my first post a bit.

Today I have received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of creditor: CP Plus Ltd. I understand this is different to the 'Letter of Claim' mentioned previously. I would be sincerely grateful for any advice on what to do next. Thank you.

Great! I'm ready for a game of chicken In the meantime, I will write a letter of complaint to the BPA as per your advice and see if that leads to a cancellation of the PCN. Will keep you posted with developments. Thanks again