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
    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 8th Sep 16, 11:22 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 5Thanks
    GMAC
    LCP Harlesden Plaza Popla Appeal
    • #1
    • 8th Sep 16, 11:22 PM
    LCP Harlesden Plaza Popla Appeal 8th Sep 16 at 11:22 PM
    Hi all,

    I have a draft of my POPLA appeal here if you lovely folk have a moment to critic it:

    I would like to appeal this PCN from LCP at Harlesden Plaza, on the following grounds:
    1. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012. No keeper liability.
    2. Non-compliance with the terms set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
    3. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.

    1. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

    The Notice to Keeper shows the 'DATE WHEN THIS NOTICE WAS SENT' to be Friday xx-xx-xxxx, based on POFA 2012: '(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.' It is therefore assumed the “given” date of this notice is in fact Tuesday xx-xx-xxxx. This implies the 14 day period where the reduced amount of £50 may be paid is extended to Tuesday xx-xx-xxxx. As of Monday xx-xx-xxxx LCP’s website denotes a charge payable of £100 (photographic evidence can be found in the supporting documents under PAYMENT DUE xx-xx-xxxx), The notice itself clearly states “If this Parking Charge is paid within 14 days of the date of this notice it will be reduced to the sum of £50.” This notice to keeper is therefore fraudulent in nature and thus invalid.


    2. Non-compliance with the terms set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

    Paragraph 19.7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If prompt payment is made (defined as 14 days from the issue of the parking charge notice) you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. This reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of the full charge.” LCP has failed to comply by not extending the 14 day period to Tuesday xx-xx-xxxx. As of Monday xx-xx-xxxx LCP’s website denotes a charge payable of £100 rather than the reduced charge of £50 (photographic evidence has been uploaded under PAYMENT DUE xx-xx-xxxx).

    Paragraph 22.12 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If you reject an appeal you must: -tell the motorist how to make an appeal to POPLA. This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and a valid 10-digit verification code. Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in a prominent position on the first page of the rejection letter.” There is absolutely no mention of POPLA or a verification code on the first page of LCP’s letter of rejection. In fact LCP blatantly withhold any mention of POPLA until penultimate paragraph of the document (letter has been uploaded as evidence under LCP REJECTION LETTER).




    3. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.
    In circumstances where contract terms are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in the terms set out in any contract formed with the driver, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing the contract. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”) including;

    Paragraph 68: 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.

    Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
    (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.


    The signs did not properly explain what the data captured by ANPR cameras would be used for

    Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice states that "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

    The sign LCP claims to denote the use of ANPR technology has no mention of Automated Number Plate Recognition whatsoever and in fact only mentions “AS THE DRIVER, YOU ARE ENTERING A CAMERA MANAGED PARKING AREA,” a driver could easily interpret this signage as simply meaning the car park is under CCTV for security purposes. This correlates directly with Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings (shown above) from the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and thus the most favourable meaning to the consumer should prevail. Once again LCP is in direct violation of the BPA code of practice.

    Consequently, LCP did not obtain my consent to use any photographs of my vehicle that had been captured by the ANPR cameras. LCP’s Parking Charge Notice is therefore invalid.


    Any opinions welcome.

    I have some Postimage links of the redacted rejection letter if anyone would like to volunteer for a PM of links to post in this thread.

Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Sep 16, 11:31 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 8th Sep 16, 11:31 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Sep 16, 11:31 PM
    You can show broken links by changing the http to hxxp and we'll convert the links here.

    As it's Harlesden Plaza I think you are RIGHT to omit 'no landowner authority' (unusually) seeing as the PPC owns the site. You don't want POPLA on their side on any point.

    You can expand on that signage point, seeing as cases are won at this site, based on the unclear signs, almost none of which mention the parking charge. You need to say that - and point out that some signs contradict others, there is little chance that a driver will have seen the tems including agreeing to the charge (as it isn't mentioned much) and the banner at the drive thru creates no obligation at all regarding parking, time limit, pay & display or any charge at all.

    Your first point needs to lose the bit I have deleted below which wasn't right. Are you saying it was sent too late for keeper liability? If so, say so. This is not a point to mix up with the '14 day discount':

    1. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

    The Notice to Keeper shows the 'DATE WHEN THIS NOTICE WAS SENT' to be Friday xx-xx-xxxx, based on POFA 2012: '(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.' It is therefore assumed the “given” date of this notice is in fact Tuesday xx-xx-xxxx.
    And you should add the new POPLA appeal point found by searching the forum for the word 'individual'.
    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.

    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 8th Sep 16, 11:53 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    • #3
    • 8th Sep 16, 11:53 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Sep 16, 11:53 PM
    Links to rejection letter.

    hxxps://postimg.org/image/9jcnzsotr/ (Page1)
    hxxps://postimg.org/image/r84erf0kv/ (Page2)
    hxxps://postimg.org/image/hz28harov/ (Page3)
    hxxps://postimg.org/image/yyb6wk2wf/ (Page4)

    Signage

    hxxps://s17.postimg.org/sbixhzaun/Entrance_Signage_View.png
    hxxps://s17.postimg.org/hpz25z4j3/24_hour_P_D.png
    hxxps://s17.postimg.org/3jod7uzzj/ANPR_SIGN.png
    hxxps://s17.postimg.org/gp3vdytv3/24_hour_Pay_Display_Tariff_Board.png
    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 9th Sep 16, 12:29 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    • #4
    • 9th Sep 16, 12:29 AM
    • #4
    • 9th Sep 16, 12:29 AM
    Thanks for the speedy reply CM

    Your first point needs to lose the bit I have deleted below which wasn't right. Are you saying it was sent too late for keeper liability? If so, say so. This is not a point to mix up with the '14 day discount':
    I've got muddled up in my notes here and thought POFA would apply to the 14 day discount period but that paragraph of the schedule is to do with receipt of NTK (which was within the 14 day period). I will just stick with the BPA Paragraph 19.7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If prompt payment is made ..... point in that case.

    I'll beef out the signage point in the morning and thankyou for the tip about individual, happy to have another argument relating to POFA as its definitely stronger than BPA stuff.

    If you'd like to see their latest NTK's:

    hxxps://s14.postimg.org/n99qd3r69/NTK_PAGE_2.png
    hxxps://s14.postimg.org/xkm35rivl/NTK_PAGE_1.png

    I find it hard to pick out any obvious flaws against POFA in the wording.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 16, 1:00 AM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 9th Sep 16, 1:00 AM
    • #5
    • 9th Sep 16, 1:00 AM
    https://s14.postimg.io/xkm35rivl/NTK_PAGE_1.png

    Front page is the main place to look to compare it to the POFA - have to say that's not bad wording...but...

    You could certainly point out that the period of parking is misstated - cannot possibly be correct and that's mandatory data for a NTK. It says the period of parking was 18 mins but their own ANPR evidence disproves this calculation because the car was at the entrance and exit, driving at the start and end of that period. By definition, any 'period of parking' must be just what it says in the Act. A true, stated and evidenced period that the car was actually 'parked' MUST be defined in a NTK, to comply with the POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9. It is a fact that the car was NOT parked for 18 minutes, cannot have been, so the NTK fails to comply with the statute.

    Really go to town on the signs, using POPLA's own words that they will recognise because pretty much all their decisions are from templates. So say more about the signs, mention the banner at the drive thru which mentions nothing at all about paying & displaying:

    Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. On review of the signage evidence provided by the operator, I believe that POPLA will see that the actual charge is stated only on the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera signs, of which there are two or three in the entire car park. There may be over 30 signs but it cannot be disputed that if 90% of the signs do not mention the £100 charge they cannot form a contract nor lead to any 'agreement' to pay it, because the charge is unknown. Signs which do not mention £100 are of course, insufficient to bring the inconspicuous and unexpected charge to the attention of a driver. As such, I suggest that in the interests of consistency of decision-making where the facts are remarkably similar, POPLA is likely to conclude, as it did in a case in the public domain last month at this same site, that the operator has failed to demonstrate it issued the PCN correctly.

    Comes from this one (daft reasoning about GPEOL makes no sense in the first part of the decision so don't quote that POPLA idiot-mode stuff about the Beavis case, which proves POPLA have no clue what GPEOL even means - it has nothing to do with signage, which won the case!):

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108186

    Also I would certainly say if the driver used the drive-thru then they did not park anyway; collecting a takeaway from a car is not parking. And the operator has also failed to apply the mandatory (under BPA Code of Practice) bare minimum ten minute grace periods x 2, one either side of the allowable time to actually queue (which isn't parking), then order a takeaway and collect from the moving car. At no point seeing any P&D machines nor mention of £100 because the banner invites a driver to collect a takeaway and brings no parking restrictions to a driver's attention at all. Eighteen minutes all told, from arrival to driving out, is not enough time to conclude that the car has parked at all, let alone for longer than the time taken to queue up and get food.


    HTH
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-09-2016 at 1:13 AM.
    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.

    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 9th Sep 16, 12:30 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    • #6
    • 9th Sep 16, 12:30 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Sep 16, 12:30 PM
    Thanks again CM you are far too kind with the amount of help you've given everyone on here,

    Bit of a revelation here but after seeing a thread about an Northern Irish registered address it appears I am not obliged to pay or accept any form of keeper liability since POFA will not stand in Northern Irish court.

    The vehicle is registered in Northern Ireland as is the address of the keeper so I've unwittingly wasted my efforts, what should I do at this point since I've got a POPLA case?

    I will still post my latest draft as a help to others who get caught out at this location.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 16, 12:46 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 9th Sep 16, 12:46 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Sep 16, 12:46 PM
    We have another one like this.

    We reckon, do the POPLA appeal anyway and as your first point, adapt the new POPLA appeal point you should find when you search for the word 'individual'. That stops the PPC saying 'oh well, never mind the POFA, we are pursuing this person as the driver - with zero evidence of that!'

    And change 'Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012' (which isn't needed now!) to a more relevant point explaining that you live in NI:
    'No keeper liability because I am a keeper who lives in NI where the POFA does not apply' as your second point.

    Then the usual other things about signs, etc., as you have drafted so far.

    Show us draft #2.
    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.

    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 9th Sep 16, 1:07 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    • #8
    • 9th Sep 16, 1:07 PM
    Draft 2
    • #8
    • 9th Sep 16, 1:07 PM
    Here is a second draft of the appeal, I still have some rewording to do but this how it should look:



    I would like to appeal this PCN from LCP at Harlesden Plaza, on the following grounds:
    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    2. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland
    3. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012
    4. Non-compliance with the terms set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
    5. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.

    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator in both showing that I, the appellant and registered keeper, have not complied with terms in place on the land and showing that I am liable for the parking charge issued. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is my right, under Schedule 4, to not name the driver and still not be lawfully held liable.
    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of a charge being recorded. Operators should never suggest this. Furthermore, a failure or refusal to name the driver on the part of the recipient of a parking charge notice under Schedule 4 does not mean that the recipient accepts they were the driver at the material time. A keeper has no obligation to name the driver.
    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, 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 registered keeper without a valid NTK.

    Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    2. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland

    The operator cannot assume keeper liability or attempt to ‘recover’ any charge since I the registered keeper of the vehicle live in Northern Ireland. POFA does not apply to keepers in Northern Ireland and therefore the operator cannot possibly pursue their 'claims' in Northern Irish Court.

    3. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

    The Notice to Keeper (NTK) supplied by LCP claims the period of parking to which this notice relates is 18mins but the ANPR evidence provided clearly shows the driver entering and leaving the car park, this disproves their own calculation since, by definition, any period of parking must be exactly as stated in the Act. In order for an NTK to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) Schedule 4 (2012) it MUST define a true, stated and evidenced period of when the vehicle was actually ‘parked’. LCP have not complied with the statute as it is clear from their own evidence the vehicle was not ’Parked’ for a duration of 18 minutes.

    4. Non-compliance with the terms set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

    Paragraph 19.7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If prompt payment is made (defined as 14 days from the issue of the parking charge notice) you must offer a reduced payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the charge. This reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of the full charge.” LCP has failed to comply by not extending the 14 day period to Tuesday xx-xx-xxxx. As of Monday xx-xx-xxxx LCP’s website denotes a charge payable of £100 rather than the reduced charge of £50 (photographic evidence has been uploaded under PAYMENT DUE xx-xx-xxxx).

    Paragraph 22.12 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “If you reject an appeal you must: -tell the motorist how to make an appeal to POPLA. This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and a valid 10-digit verification code. Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in a prominent position on the first page of the rejection letter.” There is absolutely no mention of POPLA or a verification code on the first page of LCP’s letter of rejection. In fact LCP blatantly withhold any mention of POPLA until penultimate paragraph of the document (letter has been uploaded as evidence under LCP REJECTION LETTER).

    5. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.
    In circumstances where contract terms are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in the terms set out in any contract formed with the driver, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing the contract. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”) including;
    Paragraph 68: 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.

    Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
    (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.


    The signs do not properly explain what the data captured by ANPR cameras would be used for

    Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice states that "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

    The sign LCP claims to denote the use of ANPR technology has no mention of Automated Number Plate Recognition whatsoever and in fact only mentions “AS THE DRIVER, YOU ARE ENTERING A CAMERA MANAGED PARKING AREA,” a driver could easily interpret this signage as simply meaning the car park is under CCTV for security purposes. This correlates directly with Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings (shown above) from the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and thus the most favourable meaning to the consumer should prevail. Once again LCP is in direct violation of the BPA code of practice.

    Consequently, LCP did not obtain my consent to use any photographs of my vehicle that had been captured by the ANPR cameras. LCP’s Parking Charge Notice is therefore invalid.

    The signage is not conspicuous, legible or written in intelligible language


    Paragraph 18.3 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice states “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm”. On review of the signage evidence provided by the operator, I believe that POPLA will see that the actual charge is stated only on the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera signs, of which there are two or three in the entire car park. There may be over 30 signs but it cannot be disputed that if 90% of the signs do not mention the £100 charge they cannot form a contract nor lead to any 'agreement' to pay it, because the charge is unknown. Signs which do not mention £100 are of course, insufficient to bring the inconspicuous and unexpected charge to the attention of a driver. As such, I suggest that in the interests of consistency of decision-making where the facts are remarkably similar, POPLA is likely to conclude, as it did in a case in the public domain last month at this same site, that the operator has failed to demonstrate it issued the PCN correctly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 16, 4:48 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 9th Sep 16, 4:48 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Sep 16, 4:48 PM
    Consequently, LCP did not obtain my the consent of the driver or the keeper or the owner, to use any photographs of the vehicle that had been captured by the ANPR cameras. LCP’s Parking Charge Notice is therefore invalid.
    I would only suggest changing the above as shown to make the driver more vague than the way this was reading in the draft.

    Nice appeal - and clearly the fact you live in NI should kill it stone dead, because not matter how compliant the wording on the NTK might (almost) be, the POFA does not apply to you!




    P.S. when this POPLA appeal is over, email the DVLA with a copy of that NTK and point out that the operator could see from your DVLA data that you lived in Northern Ireland, yet still mailed a NTK which totally misstated and misled the recipient about keeper liability. It will be a template but it does not say ''E&W only'' so if this operator is sending that out, with no scrutiny to check for addresses in Scotland or NI, then they are misleading keepers in Scotland & NI that they 'will be liable'. Not allowed. That is something the DVLA take seriously.

    david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

    HTH
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-09-2016 at 4:54 PM.
    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.

    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 9th Sep 16, 6:19 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    Great I'll give it another quick polish and get it sent off, hopefully others will benefit from this thread.

    I'll stick the POPLA results up here when the time comes.

    Thanks again for all your input, you've been invaluable!
    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 13th Oct 16, 6:04 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    Decision - Unsuccesful
    Well apparently I didn't do enough to deserve an appeal, frustrated as they didn't even cover all of the points I made,

    Decision Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name Esther Sargeant
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a parking charge notice (PCN) because the appellant failed to purchase sufficient parking time.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, including, the operator has not shown who is liable for the charge, PoFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland, Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012, the operator has not complied with the terms set out in the BPA Code of Practice, signage is unclear and inadequate.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The term and conditions of the site state: “24 HOUR PAY AND DISPLAY...ANY LENGTH OF STAY IS PAYABLE…ENTER FULL REGISTRATION NUMBER…A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE MAY BE ISSUED FOR…NON PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING TIME”, “ PLEASE ENSURE YOU PURCHASE YOUR REQUIRED PARKING TIME…FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A PARKING CHARGE OF £100”. The operator issued the PCN on XX XXXX XXXX to vehicle registration XXX XXXX because the appellant failed to purchase sufficient parking time. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The cameras captured the appellant entering the site at XX:XX, exiting at XX:XX; the period of stay was 18 minutes. A system generated print out shows that insufficient parking was purchased on the date of the event. The appellant states the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland. As the contravention occurred in England, PoFA 2012 does apply to the appeal, regardless of where the appellant currently resides. The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. Upon review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) must be adhered to. Upon review of the PCN, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The appellant states the operator has not complied with the terms of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has not detailed which section of the BPA Code the operator has not complied with, and the ground of appeal is too broad for me to be able to consider. The appellant states the signage at the site is inadequate and unclear. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map, which details the locations of the signs. Upon review of the signs, I consider the terms are stated clearly and are sufficient to give motorists opportunity to view the terms and conditions before deciding to park. It is the responsibility of all motorists to view the terms and conditions when parking on private land. From the evidence provided, I am satisfied the operator has met the minimum standards set by the BPA. When deciding to park, it is the motorist’s responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions of the car park and comply with these. On this occasion, the motorist did not adhere to these by failing to purchase sufficient parking time. As such, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

    Any advice on what to do next other than pay them?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Oct 16, 10:59 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Gobsmackingly awful decision. Obviously ignore this drivel. Of course someone in NI does not pay this!

    You could have ignored it all along but we actually thought POPLA would get the appeal points. Worry ye not. Ignore it now.
    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Oct 16, 11:12 PM
    • 11,009 Posts
    • 16,433 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Is ISPA still around to complain to?

    Esther Sergeant.

    https://uk.linkedin.com/in/esther-sargeant-90340994

    Note a degree in 'Creative Writing'. Maybe should have done the 'Creative Reading and Understanding' Course.

    Utterly appalling decision, exposing perfectly the total inexperience and lack of knowledge of the private parking issue, as minimum wagers continue to give ridiculous and totally shallow decisions that expose non-liable motorists to on going hassle and grief, for up to 6 years.

    If any harassment case ultimately comes forward as a result of such spurious (and that's a kind descriptor) adjudications, the adjudicators must be charged with providing their reasons for such utter rubbish.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Oct 16, 11:17 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The signage at Harlesden Plaza has been found wanting before, by this service of POPLA and old POPLA, both. Do they have no consistency?

    We had a case there just a month or two ago - I think on this forum - where the Assessor decided the case on the signs not being clear, most not mentioning the charge nor telling drivers how the ANPR data would be used. But she thinks they are clear, then...
    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.

    • GMAC
    • By GMAC 17th Oct 16, 12:32 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    GMAC
    Thanks I really appreciate your comments, It's clear POPLA has become somewhat corrupted over the last few years based on their recent decisions. I'll keep the thread up to date with any future correspondence and we'll see how this pans out!

    As of today I've received the typical "you lost your appeal, pay us or else" template and having done some research on the subject of NI Keeper with England PCN there has been universal agreement that LCP must pursue in N. Irish court (which they won't of course).

    The most frustrating part of all is the fact LCP have another unsuccessful appeal to quote in future cases.
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 17th Oct 16, 4:26 PM
    • 1,844 Posts
    • 2,513 Thanks
    nigelbb
    The fact that the driver is a resident of Northern Ireland is irrelevant. The 'crime' was committed in England where POFA 2012 applies so the keeper can be held liable even if they live in NI. The PPC will have to chase the keeper for the debt through NI courts of course which is unlikely.
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

332Posts Today

1,382Users online

Martin's Twitter