Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • P-Ride
    • By P-Ride 1st Aug 16, 3:16 PM
    • 66Posts
    • 37Thanks
    P-Ride
    UKPC demanding the keeper identify the driver?
    • #1
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:16 PM
    UKPC demanding the keeper identify the driver? 1st Aug 16 at 3:16 PM
    Hi, a young relative of mine recently received a ticket in an industrial estate in Cambridge, from UK Parking Control, for the driver being parked 'longer than the maximum period permitted'.

    I sent my relative the template letter to send and they have received the response shown below.

    My hunch is that this is a ploy to cause the keeper to admit they are the driver. Is this correct?

    What's the best response?

    Thanks

Page 1
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 1st Aug 16, 3:20 PM
    • 5,430 Posts
    • 4,956 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #2
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:20 PM
    • #2
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:20 PM
    sit and await a POPLa code
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 1st Aug 16, 3:30 PM
    • 4,107 Posts
    • 3,589 Thanks
    Herzlos
    • #3
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:30 PM
    • #3
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:30 PM
    Exactly; you don't do anything. They are hoping you'll name the driver, but if you don't they'll just reject your appeal (which they'll do anyway) and give you a POPLA code.
    • P-Ride
    • By P-Ride 1st Aug 16, 3:39 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    P-Ride
    • #4
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:39 PM
    • #4
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:39 PM
    Great, cheers.

    What tends to happen after getting the POPLA code?
    • tykesi
    • By tykesi 1st Aug 16, 3:40 PM
    • 1,406 Posts
    • 1,767 Thanks
    tykesi
    • #5
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:40 PM
    • #5
    • 1st Aug 16, 3:40 PM
    You appeal to POPLA.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 1st Aug 16, 4:28 PM
    • 14,806 Posts
    • 13,448 Thanks
    bod1467
    • #6
    • 1st Aug 16, 4:28 PM
    • #6
    • 1st Aug 16, 4:28 PM
    And this is all described in the NEWBIES FAQ. (The process only ... there is NOT a template POPLA appeal).
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 1st Aug 16, 5:42 PM
    • 4,147 Posts
    • 4,767 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #7
    • 1st Aug 16, 5:42 PM
    • #7
    • 1st Aug 16, 5:42 PM
    It's just the monkeys at UKPC trying it on again.

    As a BPA member, UKPC can access the DVLA but only for the keepers details. They are not entitled to know who the driver is/was
    And, you are not about to tell them ....... nobody should
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 1st Aug 16, 5:47 PM
    • 36,470 Posts
    • 73,306 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #8
    • 1st Aug 16, 5:47 PM
    • #8
    • 1st Aug 16, 5:47 PM
    I think a complaint to the BPA and DVLA is in order as they are deliberately misrepresenting the wording of POFA 2012. They have said the keeper should tell them the driver's details which is not what the Act says. They may invite the keeper to tell them, but there is no requirement to do so. The word "should" implies an obligation that the Act does not in fact require.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • P-Ride
    • By P-Ride 11th Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    P-Ride
    • #9
    • 11th Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Oct 16, 12:56 PM
    Hey guys, here's their response.

    Looks like it's POPLA appeal time!

    Any guidance? Worth using the point by Fruitcake, that they've mis-represented POFA 2012?

    Cheers

    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 11th Oct 16, 1:02 PM
    • 5,430 Posts
    • 4,956 Thanks
    pappa golf
    yes and that letter is dated the 28/09 , we are noew on 11/10 so that is 2 weeks ago (14 days) , check the date of the popla code on parking cowboys site http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/


    watch that cut off date carefully
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Carthesis
    • By Carthesis 11th Oct 16, 1:27 PM
    • 464 Posts
    • 813 Thanks
    Carthesis
    Plus they're definitely and definitively quoting POFA2012, so they can't weasel out by claiming they're working under the reasonable presumption the keeper is the driver.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Oct 16, 1:37 PM
    • 4,147 Posts
    • 4,767 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Plus they're definitely and definitively quoting POFA2012, so they can't weasel out by claiming they're working under the reasonable presumption the keeper is the driver.
    Originally posted by Carthesis
    That's UKPC for you, scratching around for scam money
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • P-Ride
    • By P-Ride 11th Oct 16, 2:29 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    P-Ride
    Thanks guys.

    Any tips on our appeal? Happy to draft it myself, but some bulletpoints would be really appreciated.

    Not sure I totally get the POFA2012 inference?

    Cheers
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 11th Oct 16, 2:40 PM
    • 1,009 Posts
    • 918 Thanks
    DoaM
    Check the POPLA Decisions thread ... lots of useful info there. C-m has also created some template items for use in POPLA appeals, starting around post #2340.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 5:44 PM
    • 40,565 Posts
    • 52,449 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep, we have templates now for the usual POPLA points which seems to help newbies put together a draft more confidently. Was the first PCN a postal one with pics of the car taken by ANPR, or was the PCN a windscreen one...with no NTK following a month later?

    Also can you show us the signs (helpfully, UKPC will have shown blurry pics on their website you can view and use!).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • P-Ride
    • By P-Ride 16th Oct 16, 9:30 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    P-Ride
    Yep, we have templates now for the usual POPLA points which seems to help newbies put together a draft more confidently. Was the first PCN a postal one with pics of the car taken by ANPR, or was the PCN a windscreen one...with no NTK following a month later?

    Also can you show us the signs (helpfully, UKPC will have shown blurry pics on their website you can view and use!).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Cheers guys. We have to have the appeal in 10 days from now, so have set myself the target of having it in the post in the next 48 hours.

    The photos are below, obviously with number plate removed.

    It was a windscreen ticket, with no NTK letter. The first we've seen of these photographs is logging in (cheers for the tip!).

    Any tips/guidance on principles for the appeal? Cheers.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Oct 16, 1:17 PM
    • 40,565 Posts
    • 52,449 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Annoyingly your relative parked right in front of a sign (although the £100 can't be read on that sign). POPLA might not be swayed by 'unclear signage' but it always falls within a POPLA appeal.
    a young relative of mine recently received a ticket in an industrial estate in Cambridge, from UK Parking Control, for the driver being parked 'longer than the maximum period permitted'.
    How much longer - overnight?!

    Take your appeal points from the template I wrote in September, most of which the keeper can use. They are in the penultimate page of POPLA Decisions, top of the forum board.

    Show us which ones you have put together; you can copy them verbatim. I would expect to see at least 4, maybe 5 points in your POPLA appeal so go & take a look at the templates.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 17th Oct 16, 1:36 PM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,272 Thanks
    The Deep
    Thanks guys.

    Not sure I totally get the POFA2012 inference?

    Cheers
    Originally posted by P-Ride

    Have you read it?


    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/contents/enacted
    • camelcx
    • By camelcx 17th Oct 16, 3:15 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    camelcx
    Exactly the same place as my case. I had two tickets in April which has been recently cancelled. Here's my thread for reference:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5449414

    They've changed the sign since May or sometime later, so you need to alter that a bit. Good luck.
    • P-Ride
    • By P-Ride 18th Oct 16, 1:29 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    P-Ride
    Thanks for the tips guys.

    I've taken CamelCX's example and edited slightly.. to account for the fact the car was parked in front of the sign.

    Nonetheless, the font does seem very small.

    I've added a link to my own photo of the sign also.

    How is this?

    Thanks

    UKPC, PCN No. xx

    xx/xx/2016

    POPLA Code: xx

    VRN: xxxxxx

    I am the keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal. I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

    On the above date, the quoted Parking Charge Notice was issued sighting “Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted”. This charge has been appealed directly with UKPC within the allowed 28 days and rejected.

    I challenge this 'PCN' as the keeper of the car. The driver believes that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Furthermore, I understand UKPC do not own the car park and have given me no information about their policy with the landowner to issue such a charge. UKPC have failed to provide such documentation despite being requested to do so.

    I contest the charge and request it is dismissed on the following grounds:

    1.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
    2.The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    3.The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability
    4.No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    5.Inadequate photo evidence that a contravention occurred nor the location where the car was parked

    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

    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%2Bsign_001.jpg

    Here is the sign under dispute in this case:

    http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb385/alexjholland/Complaints/UKPC%20sign.png

    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, unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a small font. 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.

    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.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''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.''

    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability

    The requirements of Schedule 4 POFA are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt. The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 6, October 2015) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers). UKPC has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as followed.

    a) In regards to paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4, POFA 2012, the 'period of parking' is not 'specified', only the time and date the parking charge was issued. It does not specify the period of parking as demanded under POFA 2012 paragraph 8(2)(a) and paragraph 7(2)(a). In fact the observation time is not specified. The Notice does not state the period of parking, merely the time of the alleged contravention.

    b) The Notice to Keeper does not, as per Paragraph 8(2)(c), state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f), with 7(2)(b) requiring that it “describe(s) those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose”. The “breach” was alleged to be for “parking for longer than the maximum period permitted”, however it does not make clear to the keeper what the maximum period permitted was, and how the driver had (allegedly) exceeded this.

    c) Paragraph 8 (2)(g) requires the operator to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment. The ‘Notice to Keeper’ fails to offer any discount and is therefore neither in compliance with the strict requirements of POFA nor with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 5, October 2015) paragraph 21.10.

    UKPC have failed to comply and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

    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

    Inadequate photo evidence that a contravention occurred nor the location where the car was parked

    The photographic evidences provided by the operator shows no parking time, merely photos taken at two different time slots. This does not prove the car has been parked in the area for the entire peroid of time. Therefore, I put this operator to strict proof that the parking event has actually happened for the full period of time.
    Also form the photographic evicences provided in the online link along with the notice to keeper, one cannot determine any terms had been breached nor any charges could apply. There's no readable terms and conditions regarding the "maximum parking period" nor an amount of the parking charge.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

546Posts Today

3,536Users online

Martin's Twitter