Query re. First parking appeal and NTK letter

Hello All,

I have now received the evidence pack from the POPLA appeal i submitted and I could do with some help. I have read the POPLA rebuttals from the Newbie post but I struggling to get my head round this and write a rebuttal.

Would someone be kind enough to look at at the response from First Parking and give me some guidance.

Thank you very much

thank you very much for that Coupon-Mad. I will use that to write a rebuttal on the photos/signage.

in the mean time can someone help me with this

In the evidence pack they show an email conversation with the BPA reading as followed:

"Hi
As per our conversation I can confirm that should the driver appeal the charge from a Notice to Driver (PCN on the windshield) advising he was the driver, wishes to appeal and gives all the relevant information, there is no reasonable cause to contact the DVLA (as the motorist has provided his details already).
Once the driver appeals the usual process of appeals is applied.
After having the excerpt from the motorists appeal, I agree that he is referring to a POFA (2012) NTK which is not applicable, as he appealed from a Notice to Driver.

Once you send through an evidence pack and copy of the POPLA assessment, I shall pass to my colleague Joanna Barnes who will review to see whether we can help in any way"

with this email they then comment "email from the BPA advising that the driver is referring to POFA which isn't relevant as the contravention date is 07/02/2017 and they appealed 06/03/2017 and First Parking Rejected 07/03/2017"

In their summary, they then write "First Parkign LLP request Keeper Details from the DVLA after day 28. First Parking are also fully compliant with Schedule 4 of the POFA. Our Notice to Keeper clearly states"If you were not the driver at the time, please tell us who was driving". If you are unable to provide the driver's name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under schedule 4 of the POFA (2012).
The driver had appealed on the 28th day so therefore we were not able to request keeper details"

Can someone tell me if this is correct - as far as i am concerned I appealed the charge as the registered keeper not the driver and never claimed to be the driver so the POFA should still be relevant.
Also the conversation with the BPA seems questionable to me but i don't have the knowledge to question it.

Thank you very much for your help

Hello Coupon-Mad

Thank you for responding - I see you replied at 1AM - dedication like that is amazing. Thank you very much.

Just to confirm - they claim POFA "isn't relevant as the contravention date is 07/02/2017 and they appealed 06/03/2017 and First Parking Rejected 07/03/2017" - due to not using POFA coupled with no indication of the driver means they can't pursue the registered keeper and they don't know who the driver was without making assumptions? Is this correct?

Please can someone give me feedback on my POPLA rebuttal. Apologies if its rubbish but this is my first rebuttal and it is based on other rebuttals posted on MSE.

Dear POPLA Assessor,
PCN Code: xxxxxxx
POPLA Code: xxxxxxx

I shall respond to the evidence pack provided by First Parking.

A)PCN Detail
On the "PCN detail" sheet First parking claim the contravention occurred on Lancaster University Bowland Avenue, however, as the map (from Lancaster University website) shows, such a location does not exist in Lancaster University.

The standard image of the signage shown in the picture provided by First Parking fails to highlight how close the nearest sign was to the parked car during the contravention. Moreover, the picture of the signs fails to shows its position on the post to which it is attached. The position of the sign coupled with the small size of the font, large amounts of text coupled with poor contrasting make it almost impossible to read. First Parking try to cover poor signage by providing an additional enlarged image of the sign but this is not how it appears to a person on foot.

As the sign is positioned high up on a pole with small cluttered font with poor contrasting it is very difficult to read. If you can't read the cost of the charge and the terms and conditions of parking how can users of the car park enter into a contract with First Parking.

First Parking provide an additional image of a sign positioned at the entrance of the Car park, however, to view this sign, a driver using this entrance would have to turn their head 90 degrees; forcing the driver to take their eyes of the road ahead. This is a contravention of the following guideline: “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”, it is not possible to drive and look at a sign, without needing to look away from the road ahead.

Furthermore, i would like to draw your attention to Section 18, paragraph 10 (S18P10), of the BPA: CoP: “So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists”.

However, as seen by the image taken on Bowland Avenue there are no signage immediately displayed to the users of the disabled bays as per BPA:CoP guidelines. The nearest signage is mounted on poles which face out in the road, there is no signage that clearly, easily, and safely readable from the nearby pavement; so i can only assume that First Parking expects a disabled user to stand in the middle of a busy road to view their signage. This is unacceptable and unrealistic.

This again highlights the flagrant violation of the BPA:CoP while First Parking claim to follow it, this shows that First Parking lacks integrity and cannot be trusted.

In light of this, and in addition to these points, i will reiterate my point that there was no valid contract formed between First Parking and the driver

D) Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail
First Parking claim to show an email from the British Parking Association, yet there is no evidence the email relates to the PCN 24760253 – Moreover, the email is full of hypotheticals i.e. I can confirm that should the driver appeal the charge from a Notice to Driver (PCN on the windshield) advising he was the driver, wishes to appeal and gives all the relevant information. The appellant has not been shown to be liable, as the driver has not been identified and no application to the DVLA was ever made and no NTK was issued by First Parking.

Therefore I, as registered keeper, cannot be held liable to this charge.

First Parking does not know who the driver is, and nor is there any obligation placed upon myself (the registered keeper) to name the driver under POFA 2012 like First Parking are claiming. They have either misinterpreted this piece of law or have a complete lack of understanding of what is required, hence why they have failed to correctly comply with it.

E) The contract between First Parking and Lancaster University
The contract provided by First Parking is heavily redacted that it is impossible to make out the terms, the exemptions, times of operation, tariffs, whether PE or 'Elite Parking' are the party who have authority from the (separate) landowner to enforce contracts in the courts if necessary. This redacted section includes Section 8 and the name of the signatories. Furthermore, whole Sections such Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 have totally been omitted from the copy of the contract provided by First Parking. This raises the question as to why they were omitted.

The contract also states working days mean Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm yet according to the picture of a sign provided by First Parking the time is between Mon-Friday 08.00 to 18.00. This sign clearly contradicts the contract highlighting the poor questionable nature of the contract and the signage.

The names of the signatories on the contract have been redacted and the name “for and on behalf” appear in a different font and color raising questions about the validly of the signage.

This fails to comply with 7.3 of the BPA CoP, as required to be evidenced in the appeal already made.


I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for helping everyone, not just me.