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
    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 9th Jun 17, 1:55 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 3Thanks
    SannaKhan
    POPLA Appeal
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 17, 1:55 PM
    POPLA Appeal 9th Jun 17 at 1:55 PM
    Hi All,

    I have briefly glanced through the forum and a lot of you seem to know what you're talking about! I hope you can help me out.

    I recently entered a APNR station car park to collect a train passenger who needed to use the disabled exit, only available in the car park. We were due to be at the station roughly the same time however the train got delayed and I had to wait. I did not park and did not leave my vehicle. I have been sent a fine which when appealed has been rejected. I have now been prompted to either pay or appeal and I wish to appeal. Can anyone help me with articulating this.

    Many many thanks in advance
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Jun 17, 2:33 PM
    • 15,543 Posts
    • 19,636 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 9th Jun 17, 2:33 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Jun 17, 2:33 PM
    use the forum search box and INDIGO POPLA APPEAL as search words and draft up your appeal based on the ones you find over the last 12 months

    also look at the NEWBIES sticky thread , post #3 as well

    and make sure that RAILYWAY BYLAWS features prominently because they apply at train stations, not private parking tickets

    plenty of people have been there before you, so its almost a copy and paste job
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jun 17, 6:01 PM
    • 50,186 Posts
    • 63,577 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 9th Jun 17, 6:01 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Jun 17, 6:01 PM
    We assume it is Indigo?

    POPLA appeals for them are easily found and it doesn't even matter if you admitted who was driving (which you should pretty much never do, with private parking firms) but if it's Indigo pretending to issue a real 'penalty' then the arguments are as set out in other Indigo threads.

    Start searching for INDIGO POPLA APPEAL, as Redx said. Change the search default to ''show posts''.
    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.

    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 9th Jun 17, 6:09 PM
    • 2,420 Posts
    • 3,654 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #4
    • 9th Jun 17, 6:09 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Jun 17, 6:09 PM
    I did not park and did not leave my vehicle.
    Originally posted by SannaKhan
    That naive myth has been the downfall of many, I just don't know where you got that idea from!
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 14th Jun 17, 10:12 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:12 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:12 PM
    It was NCP
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 10:14 PM
    • 50,186 Posts
    • 63,577 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:14 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:14 PM
    OK, so either search the forum for 'NCP POPLA' and read only 2016/17 ones (not older) or adapt an Indigo railway POPLA appeal by changing the operator's name and showing us the draft.

    We will help when we see your draft, it is easy to find a few, see what's needed and copy one. Takes a few days, don't rush it.
    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.

    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 14th Jun 17, 10:19 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:19 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:19 PM
    Thank you! You guys are amazing!!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 10:21 PM
    • 14,636 Posts
    • 23,033 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:21 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 10:21 PM
    I have briefly glanced through the forum and a lot of you seem to know what you're talking about!
    There we go, regulars, damned by faint praise!

    @OP - just deal with this like any other 'NCP POPLA' or 'Indigo POPLA' appeal. Search the forum.

    PS - I know what I'm talking about!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 15th Jun 17, 10:01 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:01 AM
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:01 AM
    Should I actually be mentioning what happened, as explained in my first post? Is it necessary? The copy that I am using to base my draft on does not really have somewhere suitable that I can put this information in..
    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 16th Jun 17, 2:29 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    1) NCP not using POFA 2012 and stating that Railway Byelaws apply.
    2) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
    3) Amount demanded is a penalty
    4) No keeper liability
    5) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver
    6) Lack of standing / authority from landowner



    1. Not using POFA 2012 and No Breach of Byelaw

    From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that NCP are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under railway byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay NCP.

    There is no Railway byelaw known as: 'Breach code 1: Failing to make payment upon exit from an ANPR Approved Device controlled car park'. If NCP attempt to hold me liable under byelaws, despite the fact it's not relevant land (no POFA keeper liability possible) then breach of byelaws, too, is denied. Railway Byelaw 14 (3) says specifically:

    ''No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place''.

    Since the sign (which is too wordy and consists of very small font to be readable before parking) does not in any case, designate any 'appropriate time' or guidance under what constitutes parking then there is no defined appropriate rationale to pay. It cannot be assumed that the vehicle was parked during the period of time.

    So no contravention of any contractual term stated on the sign at that place occurred and the PCN was not properly given.

    2. Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

    Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

    “(1) This schedule applies where –
    (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

    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 byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore NCP are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

    In addition, POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.


    3. Amount demanded is a penalty


    Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied despite the fact that an informed decision could not be made. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.


    4. Failure to establish owner

    Sites designated as Railways by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of bylaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050.

    My understanding is that the owner of the vehicle is liable for any penalty, if it applies, and the owner has not been identified. As such, I am able to appeal as keeper (going by the POFA 2012 definition) but cannot be held liable under any byelaw because the Train Operator would have recourse only to pursue the owner via the Magistrates Court and that has not occurred. This is a third party agent pursuing the day to day keeper.


    5. Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver


    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.

    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:

    htteppeepepepe

    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 that these signs do not clearly mention the terms and conditions of what constitutes parking in an ANPR Controlled car park. 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, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor was stationary 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, what qualifies as parking when no bays were used.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    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.

    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.

    6. Lack of standing / authority from landowner
    Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

    “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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    Section 7.3 states: “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.''

    I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a TOC gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay APCOA (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and APCOA cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). APCOA have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put APCOA to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

    Yours sincerely,


    Have I done this correctly?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 8:51 PM
    • 50,186 Posts
    • 63,577 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Should I actually be mentioning what happened, as explained in my first post? Is it necessary?
    Originally posted by SannaKhan
    No. POPLA will be shown your first appeal by NCP anyway, if NCP bother to contest.

    The one you have found is good, but is missing some of the better points in this one:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72633904#post72633904

    Grab it all, except the last point about fraud, and then remove any repetition, and you are done and will win!
    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.

    • henryreviews123
    • By henryreviews123 17th Jun 17, 9:26 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    henryreviews123
    Nothing more to say, UP
    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 10th Jul 17, 11:05 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    I just received the following from POPLA and have 7 days to respond:

    The appellant has appealed on the basis that they did not park within the car park and therefore no parking session fee was due. They state they entered the car park in order to collect a passenger and at no point left the vehicle parked. The appellant in their appeal to POPLA claims that the signage on site is not prominent, clear or legible and therefore no valid contract was formed between NCP and the driver. The motorist questions the authority of the operator to issue parking charge notices and claims NCP are attempting to claim the charge under railway bylaws, they claim the PCN is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore feel the parking charge should be cancelled.
    We note the appellants comment however, it is the responsibility of all motorists to ensure that when they enter a car park that they have understood the terms and conditions of signage at the site and anticipated any potential delays. The appellant states that their vehicle was not parked as they were only onsite long enough to collect a passenger however during the time they were present within the car park they were making use of the private car park facilities regardless of whether they parked or not.
    We note the appellants comment, had the appellant entered the site and found the entry signage was not visible enough to determine the sites Terms and Conditions; as they are aware of Terms and Conditions being in place, it is their responsibility to check for signage once parked within the car park in order to read and abide by the regulations in place. There is signage on the entrance to the car park and multiple signs located throughout the site. NCP also place signage close to the pay and display machines in order to bring the Terms and Conditions to the attention of motorists. The Size and the font on the signage is British Parking Association approved and the BPA have indeed praised NCP for displaying signs larger than they recommend in their code of practice. Unfortunately, the signage by its very nature has to be more detailed than used by other operators as NCP own the locations as well as enforcing the Terms and Conditions, which unfortunately results in more detail having to be provided. NCP is the best known brand in parking and as such generally it is known that if you enter an NCP site you will be expected to pay for parking and follow all Terms and Conditions on site.

    In a similar case (4362236298) POPLA refused the motorists appeal stating - The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.

    The British Parking Association guidelines state that a motorist is permitted no longer than 10 minutes to enter, read the signs and leave if they do not wish to be bound by the sites Terms and Conditions. Unfortunately, the appellant’s vehicle was present within the car park for longer than the 10-minute grace period provided and therefore a parking session was due.

    In a similar case (4361806158) the adjudicator refused the motorists appeal stating -Motorists must be allowed a grace period to decide if they wish to park on private land. If a motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is “reasonable” for the purposes of Section 13 of the Code, POPLA would consider the motorist to have parked. Section 13 of the Code sets out its requirements for grace periods. Operators must consider the following points: “13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.” This first subsection defines a grace period. “13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.” This subsection explains when a grace period is applicable. Operators should allow grace periods where a motorist is deciding whether to stay or go. From the evidence, the appellant did not spend his time in the car park deciding whether to stay or go so there is no grace period applicable.

    The appellant questions the operator’s authority to manage the car park, issue and pursue motorists for the unpaid parking charge notice fees. NCP has a rolling contract with the landowner to manage and issue PCN’s at all its locations nationwide. (Please find a copy in section G) The operator has installed multiple signs and payment machines etc. throughout the car park which have been in place for a number of years previous to the issue of this PCN. It is clear that should the operator not have the required contracts and authority to manage the car park the landowner would have sought the removal of the operator from this car park through legal channels when initially the operator proceeded to manage the car park.

    This Parking Charge Notice was issued in a Non Pofa car park and issued under breach of contract. The Parking Charge Notice was not issued under Bylaws. We appreciate that Railway station car parks generally issue a Penalty Charge Notice under these bylaws, however the landowner has authority to issue under Breach of Contract instead and as such register to with the British Parking Association offering the POPLA services should they wish to do so rather than issue a Penalty notice (Bylaws) which would not allow the motorist the opportunity to use the service of POPLA.

    We note the appellant’s comments that the parking charge notice amount is excessive, however the vehicle was parked at this location in the site in full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the site, one of which being that if the terms and conditions were not complied with a parking charge notice for £100 would be issued; When parking on private land, a motorist enters into an agreement to abide by the terms and conditions of parking in return for parking at the site.”
    The appellant states the PCN fee is not a genuine pre estimate of loss however; the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal in the ParkingEye v Barry Beavis case in which this issue was raised. The decision provides clarity on the use of contract law for parking on private land. The ruling supported the view of the Court of Appeal judges in April this year and that of Judge Moloney that the charge should be an effective deterrent.

    POPLA have refused a similar case where the Unfair Consumer Contract was questioned (Case 4360517508) -The appellant has raised The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1999. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 require that certain information is provided prior to the conclusion of the contract. However, under section 6 (2) it states that “These Regulations do not apply to contracts – (a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises”. In this case I have considered “automated commercial premises” to mean a place of business where little to no human contact is required for the conclusion and performance of a contract. Following my review of the evidence provided by the operator, I conclude that the car park I question is such premises; as motorists park their vehicles without any assistance. Accordingly, I consider that there is no requirement for the operator to provide pre-contract information to motorists before a contract can be concluded,
    There is signage on the entrance to the car park and multiple signs located throughout the site. NCP also place signage close to the pay and display machines in order to bring the Terms and Conditions to the attention of motorists. The Size and the font on the signage is British Parking Association approved and the BPA have indeed praised NCP for displaying signs larger than they recommend in their code of practice. The appellant had the opportunity to observe the sites Terms and Conditions when gaining the information on how to pay and how much to pay for a parking session as the Terms and Conditions are stated on our website and on the pay and display machines on site.

    Paragraph 5d of the sites Terms and Conditions clearly states In pay and display car parks you must do one of the following: which then details the paragraph 5d, which states you pay all amounts due for your parking and comply with the requirements set out at clause 10 (Ticket types and payment methods) of these Terms.

    f) ANPR Pay after use – We recognise your vehicles movements in and out of the car park by ANPR technology and monitoring your vehicles VRM. If using this method, you must pay for your parking session online before 04.29 am on the day after you leave the car park (Information is available on our website

    It is the responsibility of every motorist to observe and comply with the Terms and Conditions our facilities are provided and managed under and by leaving the vehicle the appellant indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted that a PCN would be issued for non compliance of the displayed conditions.

    To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the Notice.

    POPLA state decisions will be based on finding of fact; the facts are that the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed Terms and Conditions and NCP trust that POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 17, 4:05 PM
    • 50,186 Posts
    • 63,577 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    NCP has a rolling contract with the landowner to manage and issue PCN’s at all its locations nationwide. (Please find a copy in section G)
    Did they include that? Show us that contract.

    Do any of the signs in the images, talk about Railway Byelaws? Maybe the big entrance sign?

    Did you admit who was driving in your first appeal, we hope not?
    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.

    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 18th Jul 17, 10:52 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    I did unfortunately admit it in my first appeal - I hadn't discovered this website then..

    They have attached a car parks outsourcing contract between london underground limited and national car parks limited - I am not sure how to attach this as the whole PDF contains some confidential information

    The image of the sign does not seem to indicate any railway byelaws..

    Not sure what to do from here - do I just pay the full fine?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 18th Jul 17, 1:19 PM
    • 2,020 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    waamo
    If POPLA haven't given their verdict yet it would be madness to pay. You may very well win.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jul 17, 10:10 PM
    • 50,186 Posts
    • 63,577 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not sure what to do from here - do I just pay the full fine?
    Originally posted by SannaKhan
    Where did you read in the NEWBIES FAQS that there is a stage to pay (except if a person, very rarely, loses a small claim they have rightly defended)? clue- we don't pay such scams.

    Where did the NEWBIES thread call it a 'fine'? Clue - it's not one.

    No-one here pays NCP 'parking charges' (we paying tariffs to park but that's different).

    If the POPLA appeal is lost, so what, ignore it. Same as the others who occasionally lose because they've shot several toes off by blabbing about who parked. You would have had a slam dunk 100% POPLA win, as keeper. You may still win, but who cares if not.
    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.

    • SannaKhan
    • By SannaKhan 21st Jul 17, 10:47 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SannaKhan
    My appeal was unsuccessful:


    The terms and conditions state: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions”, which includes “Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking”. The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms and the amount of the parking charge at £100. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 20:01 and departing at 20:48, remaining for a total of 47 minutes. In addition, there are system print-outs showing no payment was made. To be clear, POPLA assess appeals on a case by case basis. We cannot and do not compare one appeal with another. The appellant has said that the operator has not complied with POFA 2012 and that the operator has not established the owner of the vehicle or issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK). The provisions of POFA 2012 are for when an operator wants to transfer liability of the PCN from the driver to the keeper. The appellant, in her initial appeal to the operator, clearly identifies herself as the driver and so the POFA 2012 is not applicable in this instance. I am also satisfied that she was notified of the charge as she was able to appeal it to the operator on 26 May 2017. The appellant has also said that the car park is not located on relevant land and adds that only the courts can impose a penalty for breach of byelaws. However, this PCN has been issued for a contractual breach, not a breach of byelaws. The PCN was also not issued under POFA 2012 and the operator is not relying on its provisions. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators 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)”. This “must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for 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”. The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, which on the balance of probability I am satisfied means the operator has the authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this car park. The appellant says the signage is “not readable” and that the amount of the parking charge is “a penalty”. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the appellant parked at the site but no payment was made. As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 21st Jul 17, 10:53 AM
    • 2,020 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    waamo
    Sit tight and see what they do next. They may well just send scary letters but not do much more.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jul 17, 2:11 PM
    • 50,186 Posts
    • 63,577 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    My appeal was unsuccessful:


    The terms and conditions state: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions”, which includes “Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking”.

    The operator’s case file includes photographs of the signage at the site clearly showing these terms and the amount of the parking charge at £100. The operator has also provided photographic evidence of the vehicle arriving at 20:01 and departing at 20:48, remaining for a total of 47 minutes.

    In addition, there are system print-outs showing no payment was made.

    To be clear, POPLA assess appeals on a case by case basis. We cannot and do not compare one appeal with another.

    The appellant has said that the operator has not complied with POFA 2012 and that the operator has not established the owner of the vehicle or issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK). The provisions of POFA 2012 are for when an operator wants to transfer liability of the PCN from the driver to the keeper.

    The appellant, in her initial appeal to the operator, clearly identifies herself as the driver and so the POFA 2012 is not applicable in this instance. I am also satisfied that she was notified of the charge as she was able to appeal it to the operator on 26 May 2017.

    The appellant has also said that the car park is not located on relevant land and adds that only the courts can impose a penalty for breach of byelaws. However, this PCN has been issued for a contractual breach, not a breach of byelaws. The PCN was also not issued under POFA 2012 and the operator is not relying on its provisions.

    The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to issue and pursue PCNs.

    Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators 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)”. This “must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for 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”.

    The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, which on the balance of probability I am satisfied means the operator has the authority to issue and pursue PCNs for this car park.

    The appellant says the signage is “not readable” and that the amount of the parking charge is “a penalty”. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. <snipped out the usual dire POPLA template about the Beavis case> and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.”

    As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

    Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “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…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”.

    Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

    Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

    Ultimately, the appellant parked at the site but no payment was made. As such, the operator correctly issued the PCN and I must refuse this appeal.
    Originally posted by SannaKhan

    It is a shame that you admitted who was driving in your first appeal. If you had appealed only as keeper you would have certainly won, as you could not have been held liable at all.

    If NCP try a small claim in the County Court you would have defence arguments and we will help. NCP are NOT litigious, so unlikely!

    Ignore any debt collector letters.

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 26-07-2017 at 12:51 PM.
    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.

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

3,790Posts Today

7,548Users online

Martin's Twitter