PCN to Under 18

2Oranges

Hi all

I have read a lot of threads now and cannot find the one that metinoned that you need to be over 18.

My son has a PCN via NTK from MK1 parking for stopping and eating his lunch in their carpark for 26 minutes and not paying. It is a posted PCN from photo of vehicle entering and exiting car park. I told him to read here and get a template and send appeal through their website process on the basis there is no signage saying no waiting and the 9900% markup of charge is unjust. Their website was failing and he wasted a few hours trying to do that so I told him to email. I don't know the wording he sent or he identified himself as the driver.

They rejected by email response with lots of photos of signs and the popla code. This is now 28 days so thinking we need to respond asap although forums 28 on letter means 33 in reality.

Side note - I taught him to drive on said land for many an hour but they appear to have put up some more P signs now. It is an empty bit of tarmac with marked bays by Milton Keynes stadium that serves no purpose to the community until event days. He didn't think any issue of going there to get some sanctuary from college pressures to eat his lunch in the car.

So our basis for popla appeal is -

- There are no clear signs saying no waiting or no loading. I can't read the T&C picture they sent to confirm this.

- The terms and conditions sign picture they have supplied cannot be seen or read from any of the tarmac bar within 2m of the sign. As far as I can tell from the pictures there is only one T&C sign.

- As he waited in the car he did not read the conditions and therefore cannot accept or enter to any agreement with them. He did not enter the area to park his car and leave it.

- The 9900% markup of the equivalent parking charge had the intention to be to accept the terms and conditions is unjust.

- If he has stated he was the driver (he is the keeper), he is a 17 year old college student with no income or means to agree to enter any contract with the company.

2nd Side note - It looks like there could be more tariff signs on the lampposts now but there never used to be. The photos supplied look overly enhanced to make the signs stand out (I could speculate doctored).

Guidance from the forum of how to send this to popla (and beef it up) is very much appreciated.

Fruitcake

The driver's age is irrelevant. If he has a driving licence, then he is old enough to form a contract with the DVLA, a UK Government agency, so is therefore old enough to form a contract with an unregulated private parking company.

If the car was on site for 26 minutes whilst the driver ate food, then it was parked. Not paying for parking or teaching someone to drive on private land without the landowner's permission are some of the reasons why PPCs exist. You both appear to be part of the problem.

The fact that the site isn't used except on event days is irrelevant.

The mark up or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant.

PoPLA codes last 32 - 33 days, so the keeper should appeal using all the points available to them from the third post of the NEWBIES. Post the draft here before submitting, but don't miss the deadline.

nopcns

If you are under 18, you cannot be held responsible for any debts you owe until you reach the age of 18.

If they farm this out to a DRA, there could be legal issues if they chase a minor for an alleged debt.

Coupon-mad

Which PPC?

He should have paid & displayed if that was the obligation on the signs there. Sitting in the car for more than a few minutes consideration period is 'parked'.

fisherjim

MK1 Parking Ltd seems to be an off shoot of the stadium itself the officers are all registered at the stadium address and the company only operates at the stadium, so a rare occurrence on here, whether they would go as far as court is uncertain. 

They are probably not that interested in parking issues much further than making threats, who knows!

As for POPLA reciting your sob story won't make the slightest difference they will only consider contract law, PoFA, BPA COP, and signage.

GSV dates back to Nov 2020 so not much help so you would need dated current photos to hit back over signage issues.

But this type of abuse of private property is exactly why landowners take these measures a failure at POPLA doesn't mean you have to pay, you can ignore all the scap paper that follows but a court claim if it arrives must be dealt with.

All in the Newbies Thread on here, which is where you start, but plan A is probably not worth a punt with this one!

unforeseen

nopcns said:

If you are under 18, you cannot be held responsible for any debts you owe until you reach the age of 18.

If they farm this out to a DRA, there could be legal issues if they chase a minor for an alleged debt.

But it doesn't stop them holding on to it until the person is 18 and then start chasing. 

2Oranges

I am struggling paste the popla representation draft but it won't let me paste links. Please excuse how this is presented. I have written a lot about how MK1 are upping their game and creating honey pot parking areas and building more fast food outlets.

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 01/03/2024 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator –MK1 Parking Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 19/03/2024 and rejected via an email dated 20/03/2024. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1.    Signage at no point clearly states no waiting or no loading.
2.    Evidence of Period Parked– does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
3.    Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
4.    The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
5.    The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.
6.    Parking charge amounts claimed have not been explained
7.    Mitigating circumstances

2Oranges

I've had to remove pictures

1.        Signage at no point clearly states no waiting or no loading.

There are no clear and visible signs saying no waiting or loading.

An example of a clear, no waiting sign

The below signage pictures were supplied by MK1 Parking Ltd and not all can be read within the photographs. The photographs supplied are also inconsistent.

See photograph further below – No N1 sign in this picture supplied by MK1 Parking Ltd.

Same sign as above (only one sign as per pictures supplied).

The N1 sign is amazing clear and square, particularly in comparison to the public space sign above.

No N1 sign visible in this picture though. Again, picture supplied by MK1 Parking Ltd.

The private land notifications look specifically to attract parking on event days at the Milton Keynes stadium with the public space protection order to detract from the car meets that are frequent within the local community. Other car parks in the area, as per the image (again from MK1 Parking Ltd) designate their association with the businesses on premise. There is no business supplied by N1 beyond the stadium.

2Oranges

Pictures from above - order is a bit different from referenced

2Oranges

1.        Evidence of Period Parked – does not meet PoFA2012 requirements.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus waiting, driving around and practising parking manoeuvres or attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking.

PoFA2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to keeper to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

MK1 Parking Ltd claims the vehicle was parked in N1 Car Park for a parking duration of 00h:33m:04s. The notice to keeper separately states that the vehicle entered N1 Car Park at 11:54:28 and departed at 12:27:32. The car was clearly not parked for the period of time claimed as is in the pictures supplied by Mk1 Parking Ltd in the notice to keeper (if indeed it is the vehicle – see below point) it is on a roundabout outside the claimed N1 car park area at the stated times. Also note, the date and time on the images supplied in the notice to keeper are not clearly legible.

 

MK1 Parking Ltd at no point state they are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay. It is not in the gift of MK1 Parking Ltd to substitute entry/exit as parking duration in place as the POFA requirement and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, MK1 Parking Ltd are not able to definitively state a period of parking. MK1 Parking Ltd have not provided evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the notice to keeper.

2Oranges

1.        Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

 

The PCN in question contains two close-up images of a vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photograph. If it is inferred they are crops from the vehicle entering or leaving this car park in the bigger pictures, then they are clearly retouched and digitally altered. The angles of the vehicle entering and exiting on the roundabout clearly do not correlate. The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter may correspond to the larger images time imprinted but they are not legible in the images supplied by MK1 Parking Ltd. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images containing the required date and time stamp, there is no evidence where the photographs show the car parked in the location stated.