PCN - Northern Parking Services - Halfords

AaronGivens · 29 November 2017 at 9:42PM

Hi,

I have a Keeper popla code. It would appear that the appeal was rejected. What are the next steps?

KeithP · 29 November 2017 at 9:45PM

AaronGivens wrote: »

Hi,

I have a Keeper popla code. It would appear that the appeal was rejected. What are the next steps?

Your next step is to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

But submit your complaint to Halfords before that.

AaronGivens · 1 December 2017 at 2:02AM

Hi,

A complaint was made to Halfords however they suggested the keeper of the vehicle appeal to Northern Parking Services. Would someone be able to take a look at a draft of a POPLA appeal please. Its quite lengthy so there is a concern it could be too long.

Umkomaas · 1 December 2017 at 9:43AM

Just post it up. If someone has time you’ll get some feedback.

AaronGivens · 1 December 2017 at 2:25PM

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dear Sir/Madam,[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Re: Parking Charge Reference Number: ***[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Vehicle registration: ***[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]POPLA Validation code:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A notice to keeper was issues on the 14th of November 2017 and received by me the registered keeper of * Reg * for an alleged contravention of 'Breach of the terms of the parking at Carlton Road'. I am writing to you as the registered Keeper.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Signage is not clear, legible, obstructive, and not maintained. The amount demanded is a penalty.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Questionable authenticity of the photograph taken of the vehicle[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]No evidence of Landowners Authority. The operator is put to strict proof in accordance and full compliance within the relams of the BPA code of practice which they belong.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1) The amount demanded by Northern Parking Services is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. The authority on this matter is in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis. This case was characterised by clear and ample signage, unobstructed and where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether or not to accept. In this case the signage was neither clear, legible and with large lettering as stated in the BPA Code of practice. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]B4.1 If vehicles are parked under a contract, you may take parking control and enforcement action only when the contract entitles you to. This includes issuing parking tickets. The contract terms must be included on a sign British Parking Association Code of practice at each entry point to the site, and on other signs visible throughout the area concerned.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As provided the sign at the entrance does not provide enough detail in terms of the contract, terms and conditions and parking charges that the motorist agrees to and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. As stated above in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis there must be time to read the sign. Due to the speed limit and height of the sign on Carlton Road there was not enough time to view, check mirrors, signal and maneuver into the parking area. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle. Therefore rendering the contract null and void. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In this case where the vehicle was parked there was obstructed view from seeing any terms of conditions, as well as charges that could be held against the motorist. Please see attached photographs from where the vehicle was parked. The size of the lettering is far too small for a motorist to see unless standing inches from the sign. Also consider the colour palette used for the sign is obscure and also denotes no warning of charges for vehicles. Again from the entrance to the store on Carlton road as provided there is a large tent that blocks a wide angle to see any signs after purchasing goods. I refer again to the BPA code of conduct regarding signage. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]B4.2 Signs must show, in plain and intelligible language, all the terms on which an operator may wish to rely. Signs must be placed at the entrance to the site, and there must be enough signs placed in other locations throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to be aware of the risk involved at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]From where the vehicle was parked the angles of the signs are again not prominent and the view is masked by there being only two sides to the sign. In reality should a driver be parked at the wrong angle view of the signs are restricted. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I would like to refer to two cases regarding point 1).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, 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.

''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.''

''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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Second case to point 1)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.

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. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The photographs provided from where the vehicle was parked demonstrate the difficulty in not only seeing charges, maximum times of stay but the terms and conditions that they enforce. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos at the top of the images. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would also like to challenge Northern Parking Services to prove the legitimacy of these highly advanced stationary cameras and the technology behind them as well as the ability to time stamp the photographs. I would also like to request calibration certifications or parts there of, of the camera system that was used to photograph the vehicle in question.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I refer to the BPA code of conduct regarding time stamping photographs. The photographs provided don't show a clear and legible time stamp for the photographs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7.1 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 altered digitally.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Northern Parking Services any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Northern Parking Services lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Northern Parking Services to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Northern Parking Services is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Northern Parking Services to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Northern Parking Services to prove otherwise so I require that Northern Parking Services produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Northern Parking Services can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4) 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.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
[/FONT]

AaronGivens · 1 December 2017 at 2:27PM

This is the Popla appeal so far. The ending just needs to be finished. The Keeper has tailored it as best they can so hopefully it looks to a decent standard. There was a lot of information in the stickies so the keeper just spent a looooong time checking an tailoring it to the notice.

N.C · 1 December 2017 at 3:48PM

Hi,
I am new to this. Ive looked on the newbies page but cant seem to find my specific situation.
Date of contravention 11.10.17

The DRIVER parked in an all day car park which charges £3.20 (through an app) for any period between 8am to 11pm. THE DRIVER arrived at 13:18 and left at 15:16. THE DRIVER left without paying however THE DRIVER did pay through the app on the same day at 6pm.

THE DRIVER was in a courtesy car at the time and therefore the first Notice To Keeper was sent to the garage 17.10.17

They told them it was me and gave them my name and address to which Britania Parking sent a Notice to Driver/Hirer 28.11/17

The Charge has now been increased to £100.

THE DRIVER tried appealing online but it says it cant be done.(presume because it has passed the 29 days from the contravention?)

Although the garage named me as driver, there are other people on the insurance that were able to drive it.

Any help would be deeply appreciated

nosferatu1001 · 1 December 2017 at 4:40PM

Why are you posting on someone elses thread?
NEW POST is not a tricky button to find.

This IS covered in the newbies thread. Has Britannia covered the requirements of POFA by sending out the hire documentation? No, Id bet not.
But start your own thread. Do NOT hijack others, its incredibly rude.

N.C · 1 December 2017 at 4:42PM

I have done but the more places I ask for help the more chance of getting it.

And yes Britania have sent out a copy of the hire documentation.. any advice now?

Umkomaas · 1 December 2017 at 5:14PM

N.C wrote: »

I have done but the more places I ask for help the more chance of getting it.

Quite the opposite is the more likely outcome of ignoring forum etiquette.

PCN - Northern Parking Services - Halfords

Comments

Categories

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