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
    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 8th Mar 17, 11:51 AM
    • 25Posts
    • 13Thanks
    spatel6
    Query re. First parking appeal and NTK letter
    • #1
    • 8th Mar 17, 11:51 AM
    Query re. First parking appeal and NTK letter 8th Mar 17 at 11:51 AM
    Hello Everyone,

    I am wondering if you can help me. I recently got a PCN from First Parking and as per the suggestions on the Newbie section I appealed the PCN on around day 26 and received a rejection letter from First Parking together with a POPLA code. I am currently compiling my POPLA appeal but can you tell me how long I should wait for the NTK letter as I can use that as an appealing point with POPLA?

    Also on the online appeal portal, First Parking make it mandatory (with the usual *) to answer the question where you driving at the time Yes/No to make an appeal. Is this a complaining point with the BPA? I somehow think it is because on the initial appeal screen its not mandatory but becomes mandatory after submitting.


    Thank you in advance.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 8th Mar 17, 12:13 PM
    • 39,767 Posts
    • 79,588 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 17, 12:13 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 17, 12:13 PM
    Hello Everyone,

    I am wondering if you can help me. I recently got a PCN from First Parking and as per the suggestions on the Newbie section I appealed the PCN on around day 26 and received a rejection letter from First Parking together with a POPLA code. I am currently compiling my POPLA appeal but can you tell me how long I should wait for the NTK letter as I can use that as an appealing point with POPLA?

    Also on the online appeal portal, First Parking make it mandatory (with the usual *) to answer the question where you driving at the time Yes/No to make an appeal. Is this a complaining point with the BPA? I somehow think it is because on the initial appeal screen its not mandatory but becomes mandatory after submitting.


    Thank you in advance.
    Originally posted by spatel6
    The important thing is not to miss the appeal deadline, so if you haven't received the NTK by then, you will have to use non POFA compliant NTK as an appeal point. It is probably best mot to mention you haven't received one at that point unless it would be impossible for it to arrive by day 56.
    If the NTK hasn't arrived by day 56 starting the day after the alleged event and you are still within the appeal deadline, then you say that an NTK has not been received and therefore is not POFA 2012 complaint.
    If you can't appeal online without giving the driver's information then you must send the appeal by post instead. Do this first class from a post office counter and obtain a free proof of posting.
    Since you have the option of appealing by post I think the BPA will just fob you off, even though it is sharp practice and against the BPA CoP to say that release of a PoPLA code is only possible if the driver's details are given.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 08-03-2017 at 12:16 PM.
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 17, 1:45 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 17, 1:45 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 17, 1:45 PM
    Also on the online appeal portal, First Parking make it mandatory (with the usual *) to answer the question where you driving at the time Yes/No to make an appeal. Is this a complaining point with the BPA? I somehow think it is because on the initial appeal screen its not mandatory but becomes mandatory after submitting.
    I would email the BPA to complain about that:

    aos@britishparking.co.uk

    And show us your POPLA appeal before submitting it online to POPLA (under 'other' as a PDF) based on the templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 9th Mar 17, 10:44 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    • #4
    • 9th Mar 17, 10:44 AM
    • #4
    • 9th Mar 17, 10:44 AM
    thank you very much for your feedback/

    Yes, i will post my popla appeal draft on here for the experts to see.

    As a side point, i am just wondering if putting in a popla appeal at the initial appeal with the company helps get a cancellation without going through POPLA.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Mar 17, 12:16 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 9th Mar 17, 12:16 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Mar 17, 12:16 PM
    You mean putting in a longer appeal first time around to the company?

    It doesn't seem to help, but getting a POPLA code is fine.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-04-2017 at 7:46 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 9th Mar 17, 1:35 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    • #6
    • 9th Mar 17, 1:35 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Mar 17, 1:35 PM
    oh ok. I have followed the newbies section to appeal. I will also post a a message for the POPLA appeal on this forum for you experts to check.

    Thank you very much
    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 12th Mar 17, 5:15 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    • #7
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:15 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:15 PM
    Below is my draft popla appeal. Any feedback would be great


    Vehicle Registration Number xxxxxxxx
    PCN Reference xxxxxxxxxxx
    Issued by F1rst Parking LLP
    POPLA Reference.xxxxxxxxxx

    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued by F1rst Parking. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1. Incorrect Address of the Contravention
    2.No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3.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
    4.BPA Code of Practice – multiple breaches of further non-compliance
    5.No Keeper Liability – I am not sure about this point as I have not yet received an NTK (I appealed on day 25 and got a rejection from F1rst Parking) but members of this forum suggest I don’t raise it because the NTK window of 56 days will elapse on the same day as my last day for a POPLA appeal. I could use the post from http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342 if you guys think it wise to do so.
    6.No Driver Liability

    1. Incomplete Address for the contravention – Bowland Avenue does not exist
    F1rst Parking also claim the contravention occurred on Lancaster University Bowland Avenue, however, according to the map provided by Lancaster University (https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/maps/campus-map.pdf) there is no Bowland Avenue, there is Bowland Avenue South, Bowland Avenue East and Bowland Avenue South.

    2. 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


    3. 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:

    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:

    2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

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

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. Furthermore, based on the photograph of the sign provided by F1rst Parking LLP, the sign is very poor and it is very difficult to read the charges given the height of the signs.

    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 as they do not stand out from the rest of the text (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. Furthermore the sign shown in this attachment (taken by F1rst Parking themselves and attached in this appeal as Sign) is the closest sign to the alleged contravention yet the sign fails to highlight the disable bays (proof of the disable bay is shown by the attachment titled disable bay – the picture was taken by F1rst Parking) present providing further evidence of poor and confusing signage.

    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:

    archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    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:

    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:

    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.


    4. BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance -Photo Evidence and Screenshots.

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

    "When issuing a parking charge notice 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 digitally altered."

    The parking charge notice in question contains several photographs of the vehicle and the its number plate. Non of these clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). The photographs also appear to have a time and date stamp which has appeared to be inserted in post processing.

    As these are not the original images, I require F1rst Parking LLP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

    Moreoever, as the keeper of the vehicle, I tried to appeal a PCN given by First Parking being the vehicle owner via their website and I was unable to appeal the PCN without indicating if I was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention The question is "I was driving the car” and as highlighted in the Appeal 1 attachment the question does not have an astrix thus indicating it is not compulsory to complete. Upon trying to submit the appeal on the F1rst Parking website the same “I was driving the car” question becomes compulsory to answer as seen by the * on the Appeal 2 Attachment. I believe this is against the BPA Code of Practice which means F1rst Parking will only consider an appeal and if required give a POPLA code if the driver details are given. Appealing via the website remains the only realistic option for me as I am unable to appeal via post due a combination of a lack of a printer due to ineligible handwriting and dysgraphia.
    The BPA CoP (22.12) also states the following
    “22.12 If you reject a challenge you must: • tell the driver 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 the 10-digit verification code.”
    Despite this, as can be seen from the attached reject letter (attachment titled Rejection Letter) F1rst Parking failed to provide a template notice of appeal form or the correct link to the POPLA website (the website they suggest is http://www.popla.org.uk/default.htm whereas the correct website is popla.co.uk.

    5. No Keeper Liability
    To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by F1rst Parking. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
    The alleged infringement occurred on 07/02/2017 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by 03/04/2017. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

    The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.


    6. No Driver Liability

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    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.''

    I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA), the BPA Code of Practice and case law (Beavis) undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.
    Last edited by spatel6; 12-03-2017 at 5:36 PM. Reason: Incorrect URL on point 5
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 17, 5:23 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:23 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:23 PM
    5.No Keeper Liability – I am not sure about this point as I have not yet received an NTK (I appealed on day 25 and got a rejection from F1rst Parking) but members of this forum suggest I don’t raise it because the NTK window of 56 days will elapse on the same day as my last day for a POPLA appeal. I could use the post from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342 if you guys think it wise to do so.
    Not sure who you reckon advised that - no-one would tell you not to use the slam-dunk winning appeal point (should be your first point) that no NTK has been served!). POPLA codes work for 30+ days and F1rst won't even see & handle your POPLA appeal till days later. That point WINS.

    The link above doesn't work, BTW.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 12th Mar 17, 5:39 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    • #9
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:39 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:39 PM
    Not sure who you reckon advised that - no-one would tell you not to use the slam-dunk winning appeal point (should be your first point) that no NTK has been served!). POPLA codes work for 30+ days and F1rst won't even see & handle your POPLA appeal till days later. That point WINS.

    The link above doesn't work, BTW.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks for your prompt reply. I have fixed the URL, it should work now.

    As per your advice I will move point lack of NTK to point 1 and send my POPLA appeal around day 28. Is the appeal ok other than that?


    Thank you very much
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 17, 6:07 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes it is looking like a winner.

    A couple of changes:

    there is Bowland Avenue South, Bowland Avenue East and Bowland Avenue South.
    Do you mean 'North' for one of those Souths?


    ...and tweak this to remove the irrelevant stuff not suited to a University site:
    2. 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 has a right to cancellation of a charge.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 12th Mar 17, 6:32 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    Thank you very much Coupon Mad. Without the likes of people like yourself this section of this forum just would not work
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 17, 6:44 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thank you very much Coupon Mad. Without the likes of people like yourself this section of this forum just would not work
    Originally posted by spatel6
    It works with a small team of regulars - we are always looking for new members to join us! e.g. recent new ones ensuring that lots of advice is dished out here and who are in fine form, include:

    - Lamilad

    - Timothea

    - Loadsofchildren123

    - North West IT Consultant

    ...among others who stick around and help. Plus all our usual regulars (you know who you are!).

    All good.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-03-2017 at 2:04 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 7th Apr 17, 12:23 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    Thanks for all your help, i have now lodged my popla - lets see what happens.

    Thanks for all your help
    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 24th Apr 17, 10:06 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 17, 11:51 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This is nothing difficult, you just pull the evidence apart after scrutinising every date/detail and photo:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72432765#post72432765

    Show us what you put together and post a link to F1rst's sad effort.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 25th Apr 17, 3:50 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Apr 17, 1:16 AM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Can someone tell me if this is correct -
    Yes, you are 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.
    Yes, and that's why you win at POPLA when you state that in rebuttal.


    Also the conversation with the BPA seems questionable
    Well yes, always these days I'm afraid, they have gone downhill fast. Read it again, it says:
    ''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,''

    That is NOT what happened in this case. Back to the drawing board, BPA's finest.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 26-04-2017 at 9:47 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 26th Apr 17, 9:27 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    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?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Apr 17, 9:49 PM
    • 48,386 Posts
    • 61,831 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes all of that is correct. Point it out in simple terms that 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. Spell it out so POPLA don't miss it.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spatel6
    • By spatel6 26th Apr 17, 11:35 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    spatel6
    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.
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

4,956Posts Today

9,061Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin