FOR FAILING TO SPECIFY THE PERIOD OF PARKING, DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY GLADSTONE SOLICITORS ORDERED TO PAY OVER £1,000 ON COSTS.

This result stands as a monumental victory for registered keeper and sends a resounding warning to all parking operators. To elaborate, District Enforcement Limited pursue our former client as the keeper but failed to specify the period of parking, contrary to Schedule 4, Para 8(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This provision mandates that the notice to keeper should unambiguously state the period of parking.

At the final hearing, Gladstone’s agent argued the period of parking was not required because the motorist was not permitted to park without a permit. Mr. Jackson Yamba, on behalf of Lawrence and Associates Solicitors, countered that Schedule 4 para 1(2) of POFA makes it clear that :

“It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land”. He went further by submitting that if the duration had been outlined from start to end, there would have been no issue in pursing the keeper but it is not recorded in that respect, therefore, the Notice to Keeper is defective. It does not comply with the mandatory requirement.

The court was notably convinced by Mr. Yamba's submission. With the notice deemed defective, the claim was dismissed, and the claimant was ordered to pay incurred by the Defendant for over £1,000 for unreasonable conduct. The Court took the view that the issue was raised in the defence but the Claimant did not take any step to discontinue the claim.