Parking Charge notice by Parking ticketing limited

towills · 19 September 2016 at 12:20PM

Hello, I am bit confused by the following statement read in one of the forums: Many PPCs forget the NTK when replying to an appeal and if you appeal as 'keeper' then the very fact a PPC then forgets to send you a NTK by day "56", gives you a potentially winning point at POPLA stage.

I received the notice ( invoice) on windscreen on 1st Sept 2016 from Parking Ticketing Limited - so I guess I should email them on day 24. Is that right? I was not the driver at that time. How long or how soon should I as the keeper of the vehicle be expected to receive a NTK by post ?

Second query was- if we lose at POPLA stage then do we just pay up or do we have any more options left?

Last query (sorry) - the invoice on windscreen says my car is grey whereas it is golden - beige colour? Lighting at night in parking area was bad -Do I have any chances of winning this case?
Many thanks

Fruitcake · 19 September 2016 at 12:32PM

towills wrote: »

Hello, I am bit confused by the following statement read in one of the forums: Many PPCs forget the NTK when replying to an appeal and if you appeal as 'keeper' then the very fact a PPC then forgets to send you a NTK by day "56", gives you a potentially winning point at POPLA stage.

I received the notice ( invoice) on windscreen on 1st Sept 2016 from Parking Ticketing Limited - so I guess I should email them on day 24. Is that right? I was not the driver at that time. How long or how soon should I as the keeper of the vehicle be expected to receive a NTK by post ?

Second query was- if we lose at POPLA stage then do we just pay up or do we have any more options left?

Last query (sorry) - the invoice on windscreen says my car is grey whereas it is golden - beige colour? Lighting at night in parking area was bad -Do I have any chances of winning this case?
Many thanks

Please read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES then appeal using the BPA template in blue using whatever method quoted on the windscreen ticket. If online, then around day25/26. If by post, around day 22/23, sent first class from a Post Office and obtain a free proof of posting.
Take a screenshot if online. Don't use any other method other than above if posting.

The NEWBIES thread tells you when the NTK should arrive (after 28 days, before 56 days) but you want to head this off before they think get round to sending one at all. No NTK = winning PoPLA appeal point.

If you lose at PoPLA, you have done it wrong, though there have been some really dodgy decisions coming from PoPLA recently. Should you lose, the decision is NOT binding on the motorist so you should NOT pay at.

Forget the car colour, it is of no value.

Inadequate lighting. inadequate signage, not the landowner, NTK failing to meet POFA 2012 requirements, no standing to issue charges are all things you will need to save for your PoPLA appeal if the initial appeal is rejected, which is normal.

Yes, you have a good chance of winning this as long as you follow the script from the NEWBIES thread and the advice from the regulars here.

towills · 19 September 2016 at 1:43PM

Thank you Fruitcake, you have been very quick in responding and very helpful.

I will follow the advice and post the outcome as and when it comes.

I have taken pictures of their "NOTICE boards" on parking site which was fallen from the pole - perhaps that might help me at POPLA stage.

In worst case, if POPLA rejects our appeal, then do we pay or just ignore further correspondence from PTC and debt collectors?

( I do recollect one of my colleague who got a NTK by post for overstaying in McDonalds near Gatwick- all he did was bin the letters- and after few months the letters stopped coming and nothing happened!)

Coupon-mad · 19 September 2016 at 2:54PM

In worst case, if POPLA rejects our appeal, then do we pay or just ignore further correspondence from PTC and debt collectors?

You can ignore because POPLA is only binding on the PPC (when you win).

towills · 10 October 2016 at 11:46AM

Hello, Parking ticketing limited declined my appeal and issued a POPLA code.

Dates of incident:

1) Parked car and ticket on windscreen received on 27.08.2016
2) Appeal made to Parking ticket Limited on 20.09.2016
3) Appeal declined and POPLA code issued on 26.09.2016

As mentioned earlier, car was parked to pick up cousin as his dad died that night and had to travel to Wales urgently. Cousin and his wife is a resident but does not drive or own a car hence does NOT have a parking permit. Property Letting Agency have been of no help. We have photos of notice (from PTL) fallen down and another one covered with tree branches.

Please help and suggest next step. When do we appeal to POPLA? and what do we write?
We have not received notice to keeper by Post till date.

All help appreciated. Thank you.

Coupon-mad · 10 October 2016 at 12:03PM

Have a look at the template POPLA appeal points I recently added to 'POPLA Decisions' (the top thread on this board). I would say you can use the examples shown in posts:

2341
2342
2343
2345
and a point saying that No contract exists in a Trespass case - (ParkingEye v Beavis Case is not relevant)

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71406037#post71406037

Put those points together, proof read the entire thing with a cup of coffee to keep you alert(!) to see it all makes sense for your case and adapt it if it does NOT. Do not add anything saying who parked.

Show us the draft - it will be deliberately looong!

towills · 13 October 2016 at 11:55AM

Just to recap:

Dates of incident:

1) Parked car and ticket on windscreen received on 27.08.2016
2) Appeal made to Parking ticket Limited via their website on 20.09.2016
3) Appeal declined and POPLA code issued on 26.09.2016 by email.

I have three questions please.

Question1) I have not received any NTK by post yet (today is day 48 from day of getting ticket on windscreen). Do I wait for NTK to arrive?

Question 2) POPLA code issued by PTL on 26.09.2016 by email. How soon or how late do I appeal to POPLA? Is there a deadline?

Question 3) I have evidence of PTL board fallen of the Pole and one PTL board partially hidden by branches of trees. Is there a way we can send these photos to POPLA? or should we just say in appeal and not send photos?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Coupon-mad · 13 October 2016 at 1:43PM

Dates of incident:

1) Parked car and ticket on windscreen received on 27.08.2016
2) Appeal made to Parking ticket Limited via their website on 20.09.2016
3) Appeal declined and POPLA code issued on 26.09.2016 by email.

Question1) I have not received any NTK by post yet (today is day 48 from day of getting ticket on windscreen). Do I wait for NTK to arrive?

Nope, because you will not get one and that's a good thing! But do not submit your POPLA appeal till next week.

Question 2) POPLA code issued by PTL on 26.09.2016 by email. How soon or how late do I appeal to POPLA? Is there a deadline?

28 days plus a couple extra. So POPLA being submitted late next week or in ten days or so, will be fine and will then be too late for them to send a NTK even when they read your wording (as above, I've shown you the template appeal points I think you can use and one of them covers 'no NTK served').

Question 3) I have evidence of PTL board fallen of the Pole and one PTL board partially hidden by branches of trees. Is there a way we can send these photos to POPLA? or should we just say in appeal and not send photos?

I always embed photos into the 'unclear signage' standard (DELIBERATELY LONG!) appeal point (see template in POPLA Decisions in September, post numbers already given to you). That way, you can compare 'your' unclear signs with the Beavis case sign to show yours was woeful by comparison, incapable of being seen, making an offer or for the actual £100 charge to be known about and agreed by the driver.

I like to make the appeal look pretty for the POPLA Assessor bearing in mind it will amount to some 4000+ words! So embed the photos in the right place in your signage point and add a line to explain.

POPLA appeals that I suggest are long and they win like that - often the PPC throws in the towel, having lost the will to live! Too many man hours for them to contest it, is the idea. But if they don't, you do not want the Assessor to get bored/miss the point, hence the pretty photo pics to show them in the appeal what's what (this is all done online by submitting an uploaded PDF appeal under 'OTHER' only, no paper-filling in/posting).

towills · 18 October 2016 at 11:01AM

Please review this for me..
SIGNAGE:
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The entrance signage has been covered by branches of trees and found one signage fallen off the pole ( hiding behind another parked car)

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking+sign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured, placed in poorly lighted areas, hidden by tree branches and fallen off the pole. Please see attached photos below:
( I will attach 2-3 photos here).
They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

KEEPER not Driver:
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

Will the above be ok? thank you for your time.

Coupon-mad · 18 October 2016 at 1:33PM

Bumping this for comments so it doesn't slip to page 2.

towills · 19 October 2016 at 1:16PM

Sorry, I did not understand bumping.

I will most probably need to appeal to POPLA tomorrow hence would request you to check if my above appeal is ok. thank you for your help.

Parking Charge notice by Parking ticketing limited

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free