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
    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 27th Apr 17, 3:03 PM
    • 52Posts
    • 5Thanks
    bakerrev
    Motorcycle PCN from NCP in Railway car park
    • #1
    • 27th Apr 17, 3:03 PM
    Motorcycle PCN from NCP in Railway car park 27th Apr 17 at 3:03 PM
    Hi All

    First of all thanks to all those who give time to this forum with so many posts to monitor

    I have read and re-read the Newbies post and mainly understood the process I need to follow to appeal using the templates provided.

    I have a couple of questions I can't find answers to sorry.

    1. Does a POPLA appeal remove the option of paying the discounted fine? In my case a £85 reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days. I realise it's a scam to get you to pay but do I lose that option?

    2. I note that the POPLA appeal template in post 3 and not to identify the rider/driver. My invoice was for the rider at the time parking the motorcycle in the bicycle rack (a restricted area according to the ticket). However, they enquired from a station staff member where to park the motorcycle and they told them that is where motorcycles park up for the station. When the rider arrived, two motorbikes where already there, they assumed that they could add park there and not need to occupy a parking bay etc.

    Does the rider have any grounds for appeal - given that signage seemed to be clear and states motorcycles are required to pay?

    I have searched NCP related appeals and note that they are usually bad at the POPLA stage.

    I have written to Arriva trains - the landowner as well without identifying the rider - to ask for a cancellation.

    Thank you for any help offered.
    Last edited by bakerrev; 29-04-2017 at 9:27 AM.
Page 1
    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 28th Apr 17, 5:48 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bakerrev
    • #2
    • 28th Apr 17, 5:48 PM
    • #2
    • 28th Apr 17, 5:48 PM
    Anyone able to help?
    • Autolycus2000
    • By Autolycus2000 28th Apr 17, 9:03 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    Autolycus2000
    • #3
    • 28th Apr 17, 9:03 PM
    • #3
    • 28th Apr 17, 9:03 PM
    Re your two questions:

    1. Yes you will lose the option to pay the discounted rate if it goes to POPLA. But don't worry because you won't be paying anyway - discounted rate or no discounted rate.

    2. Yes you have grounds to appeal. Even without that poor advice from the station staff you have other points to appeal it on. Send the template appeal letter in the newbies thread so as you get a POPLA code. Read the advice there about how long to wait to send this initial appeal, depending on whether a windscreen PCN was issued or not.

    NCP will almost certainly reject your appeal. While you are waiting for that to happen read up about NCP, railway stations and byelaws, and start drafting your POPLA appeal ready for when you get the code.

    AND ALSO..... edit your original post so as it does not reveal who the driver/rider was.

    Bottom line here is - don't panic. NCP don't take people to court. And they can't enforce the PCN in this case anyway due to byelaws. Only Arriva can take you to court and they only have 6 months to do so. So your main goal here is to drag things out.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Apr 17, 10:52 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,520 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 28th Apr 17, 10:52 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Apr 17, 10:52 PM
    Yes, just follow the advice in the NEWBIES thread and if NCP ask who was driving, DO NOT say. Dead easy to win this at POPLA so put the credit card away...
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 29th Apr 17, 9:28 AM
    • 52 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bakerrev
    • #5
    • 29th Apr 17, 9:28 AM
    • #5
    • 29th Apr 17, 9:28 AM
    Thanks - will see how it goes.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 29th Apr 17, 12:53 PM
    • 40,242 Posts
    • 80,358 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #6
    • 29th Apr 17, 12:53 PM
    • #6
    • 29th Apr 17, 12:53 PM
    As this was a railway car park, the chances are that byelaws apply, so that will be a winning appeal point at PoPLA. If you carefully add to the initial appeal that byelaws apply, NCP may back down, but don't hold your breath.
    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
    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 6th May 17, 5:01 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bakerrev
    • #7
    • 6th May 17, 5:01 PM
    • #7
    • 6th May 17, 5:01 PM
    Little update on this; I revisited the car park to collect photo evidence.

    The signage is all over the place in terms of advice.

    1. At car park entrance the sign says 'This site is operated in accordance with Railway byelaws made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 etc. There is no mention of this on the PCN.

    2. The bicycle shelter where the motorcycle was parked has not signage to state motorcycles are not permitted or restricted parking area.

    3. The entrance sign has a motorcycle symbol stating 'Charges may apply' - which is ambigious; further signage within the car par says motorcycles are required to pay the daily / weekly rate.

    4. Motorcycles are required to display the valid ticket. How can a motorcycle display a ticket securely and be sure it will be be stolen; A further sign (away from the ticket machines) says if pay be mobile payment app on your phone. Another sign states - this is a pay and display car park. Which one is it meant to be?

    4. There are no lights on any of the signs; the rider parked at 7 a.m. in the morning.

    5. There terms and conditions of parking - are printed in miniscule print that require a magnifying glass to read I reckon.


    Do any of the above help with a POPLA appeal?

    Thanks for any advice.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 6th May 17, 5:17 PM
    • 40,242 Posts
    • 80,358 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #8
    • 6th May 17, 5:17 PM
    • #8
    • 6th May 17, 5:17 PM
    I always used a second tax disc holder for parking tickets in my motor-biking days. You may still be able to get one with a removable screw type cover. Keep tickets and take time stamped pics of them in situe in future.

    A Motorbike by definition is a bicycle. It just happens to have some extra engineering added to assist propulsion.

    Byelaws, inadequate signage, not the landowner, no standing to bring charges in their own name are all covered in post 3 of the NEWBIES. Use all relevant points available to you. Include your own pics to back up your points.
    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 6th May 17, 5:37 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,520 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 6th May 17, 5:37 PM
    • #9
    • 6th May 17, 5:37 PM
    Do any of the above help with a POPLA appeal?
    Yes, embed the most damning photo evidence into the usual POPLA appeal point about dodgy signs, as found in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread along with all the other POPLA templates, to make a long and illustrated, several page appeal.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 9th Jun 17, 6:28 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bakerrev
    Hi Again

    ** UPDATE: PCN Cancelled ** don't bother reading!!!

    Am still waiting for NCP to reject my appeal sent online at day 26.
    We are on day 45 now- no response.

    I am preparing the POPLA appeal and wondered if someone would be willing to look over it please. I've cut out the photos for ease of posting.

    Should I include anything about motorcycles unable to pay and display a ticket securely - or is that a waste of words.

    The bulk of text is taken from templates ..
    The text in bold / italics is additional words from me that might be relevant?

    Anything I have missed out?

    It's intentionally long as advised by this forum!

    Thanks for any help.



    POPLA Reference Number:!##########


    As the registered keeper of the vehicle #### ### I wish to appeal a recent parking charge issued by National Car Parks Ltd. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:


    1)! Railway land is not ‘relevant land’

    2)! The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss!

    3)! No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

    4)! Unreasonable / unfair terms

    5)! The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract

    6)! No actual loss was made

    7) A Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply.



    1)! Railway land is not ‘relevant land’

    Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not ‘relevant land’ within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws. The onus falls upon National Car Parks Ltd (NCP) to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.

    2)! The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss!

    The charge of £85 levied for ‘Parked in a restricted area in a car park’ is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19.!

    The BPA Code of Practice clause 19.5 states:

    “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.“

    This is followed by clause 19.6 which states:

    “If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.“

    The BPA Code of Practice requires that if a parking charge is for an alleged breach of contract then it must prove to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the incident. This cannot be a subsequently devised statement as this would not be a pre-estimate. The Appellant requests that NCP provides a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident. According to previous POPLA adjudications and Court rulings, running costs, such as erecting signage, wages, uniform and office costs may not be included in the calculations as they would have occurred whether a breach occurred or not.!

    Given that NCP apparently charge the same lump sum for parking outside the marked lines of a bay as they would an overstay of 30 minutes or 5hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious and damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this alleged breach of contract by NCP.!


    3)! No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts withdrivers

    The BPA Code of Practice states at 7.1 that:

    “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.”

    It is the Appellants claim that NCP (the Operator) has no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue penalty charge notices in their name in court nor standing to form contracts with drivers. The Operator does not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ticket vehicles on site, merely acting as agents for the Train Operator.

    In order to refute the claim and to comply with the above paragraph the Appellant requires that the Operator provides a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed, dated and most importantly un-redacted contract with the landowner.!The Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, NCP must demonstrate assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. Evidence has not been produced by the Operator in their rejection statement so the Appellant has no proof that such an arrangement is in existence. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has neither automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    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

    The Appellant therefore puts NCP to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between NCP and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and the Appellant can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention,etc.).


    4)! Unreasonable / unfair terms

    The charge being claimed by the Operator is a punitive sum. According to the Office of Fair Trading ‘Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’ it!“is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''

    It is wholly unreasonable to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a driver who has paid and displayed a ticket. The appellant requests strict proof that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance to the Appellants detriment and to justify the Operators charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.



    5)! The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract

    Having visited the location of the alleged “breach”, it is evident the signage provided by NCP does not comply with the BPA code of practice in particular 18.3, 18.5, 18.7, 18.8 and 18.10. In addition, signs are unlit and therefore illegible in the hours of darkness and furthermore, it is unclear as to who any contract might have been formed with as the signage states both ‘Arriva Trains’ and ‘NCP’. NCP are required to show evidence to the contrary.

    Unclear signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that contractual terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. In the absence of sufficiently prominent and detailed signage, the driver could not have been made aware of any charges applicable nor that a contract had even been proposed by NCP in respect of the alleged event.

    There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge, and there is no description of what the driver would receive from such a contract. The Appellant submits that a valid contract was not offered; even if (non-compliant) signs were present, the driver was not offered the opportunity to enter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms, nor given the opportunity to accept or reject any terms.


    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

    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.!

    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.

    Photo of signage:



    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 Appellant submits that, if signs were present on the day of the alleged event,they were not prominent enough to form a valid contract. The Appellant submits that no detailed terms relating to this Operator's onerous, inflated penalty charge were visible, and it is therefore apparent that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer,acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

    Further more the ambiguity of signage demonstrates it inadequacy. Signage erected at the entrance to the car park states ‘Charges may apply’ under the symbol of a motorcycle. See photo 1.1 below.




    photo 1.1

    The Motorcycle was clearly parked in the cycle area, in accordance with advice from Arriva Trains staff member.

    There is no signage to indicate that this is a “restricted area” or to confirm that is under the Jurestriction of NCP Car Parks Ltd. Note the logo for Arriva Trains. See photo 1.2




    photo 1.2

    Two other motorcycles were also parked in that space. (photo 1.3) and subsequent visits to the car park demonstrate that motorcycles continue to park in this location without PCN tickets. The moped parked alongside my vehicle (photo 1.4) was in parked when I returned and had NO ticket on the vehicle.



    Photo 1.3

    The physical size or engine capacity of a motorcycle does not differentiate between a cycle or motorcycle. If the moped can park in this space without receiving a ticket (and continues to park in this space as evidenced in subsequent visits to the car park) – why discriminate against other motorcycles?

    A motorcycle can be classed as a cycle with an engine and is common practice for motorcycles to park alongside bicycles in shelters, bicycle racks and locking facilities.




    6)! No actual loss was made by NCP

    In parking the motorcycle, the appellant made reasonable efforts to enquire of Arriva trains staff as to the correct parking of a motorcycle in this car park. No loss was incurred by NCP Parking Ltd as the appellant followed the advice given and parked as instructed.

    No parking bay was taken or obstruction caused. The appellant therefore contends that NCP made no initial loss due to the parking of the vehicle #### ### on ####### as alleged by NCP.

    [Will see if Day 56 comes before including this - we are at day 45]

    7) A Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given



    I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct NCP to cancel the Charge.


    Yours faithfully
    Last edited by bakerrev; 09-06-2017 at 6:33 PM.
    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 9th Jun 17, 6:32 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bakerrev
    Actually scrap my post above - I've just checked online and clicked the Appeal button to see if my appeal had been lodged.

    I had a on screen message to say it had been cancelled! No outstanding charge for this PCN.

    So they must have accepted my initial appeal - that station staff told me to park there.

    Oh well - thanks to the forum mods and helpers.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Jun 17, 6:37 PM
    • 15,219 Posts
    • 19,182 Thanks
    Redx
    I assume that arriva have failed to reply and also I assume that no NTK has arrived in the post either ?

    if no NTK has arrived, dont chase it up yet as you want it to "time out" after day 56 so another couple of weeks yet (even if you get DCA letters, always ignore those anyway)

    also bear in mind you want this to "time out" after 6 months due to the bylaws, so ARRIVA cannot take you to a magistrates court , so again its hunker down with "wait and see"

    but yes get your popla appeal draft ready , so that even if you get a popla code you submit the popla appeal around day 25 or so, so that it is again wasting time to get closer to the 6 months

    it may well be that NCP have cancelled the pcn but not informed you, but dont let on yet

    EDIT

    I see you have just checked this and found they had cancelled it after all, I must be psychic !! lol

    perhaps the letter to ARRIVA did the trick
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • bakerrev
    • By bakerrev 9th Jun 17, 6:46 PM
    • 52 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    bakerrev
    Thanks - I eventually got through the long complains queue at Arriva Trains but they simply said 'nothing to do with us' take it up with NCP.

    So something must have melted the cold hearts of NCP.

    I have screen grab from NCP website for evidence.
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

941Posts Today

7,185Users online

Martin's Twitter