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
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 21st Jun 17, 3:07 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 7Thanks
    Tun80
    ANPR NTK...notice to be issued within 14 days??
    • #1
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:07 PM
    ANPR NTK...notice to be issued within 14 days?? 21st Jun 17 at 3:07 PM
    Hi all,

    I've been reading as much as I possibly can about the deadlines for Parking Charge Notices to be issued, because I'm currently getting hammered by ParkingEye.

    I was under the impression they have to issue the notice within 14 days of the parking offence...but I just read a guide put out by the money saving expert which says 15 days on it.

    I'll be happy if either of these deadlines is the case, I just wanted to know?

    Many thanks!!!!
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Jun 17, 3:13 PM
    • 14,737 Posts
    • 18,517 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:13 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:13 PM
    if they follow POFA2012 (which they dont have to) then they have 14 days to get the NTK to the keeper for ANPR incidents

    the day it happened is day zero, so the NTK must arrive with the keeper by day 15 (assuming its not a hire car , see the NEWBIES thread about those)

    if they do not follow POFA, or if they are late in sending , then they have failed POFA and so have 6 years to enforce against the driver (not the keeper)

    many PPC`s do not follow POFA2012, yet still mither the keeper

    so if PE are using ANPR and the pcn does not arrive by day 15 , they have failed POFA2012 (this does not invalidate their claim , but makes it harder to pursue it)

    if they know they have failed POFA2012, they remove the paragraph about it

    all this is explained in the NEWBIES sticky thread
    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
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 21st Jun 17, 3:19 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    • #3
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:19 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:19 PM
    Thanks for the reply Redx!

    I've been going through the newbies thread since last Friday, and used part of a template to appeal...but everything's getting confusing.

    Just needed help in trying to make sense of it.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Jun 17, 3:23 PM
    • 14,737 Posts
    • 18,517 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:23 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:23 PM
    the BPA template in blue text is used for PE cases

    unaltered = "as is"

    it does not need any alterations so not sure why you have amended it (assuming you used it)

    if PE have failed POFA2012 (arriving by day 15) then an extra paragraph should be added saying so , plus the part about misuse of data is slightly altered to show past tense
    Last edited by Redx; 21-06-2017 at 4:39 PM.
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Jun 17, 3:25 PM
    • 13,586 Posts
    • 21,298 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:25 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:25 PM
    Pleeeease don't say that in altering the template initial appeal you gave away the identity of the driver.
    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.
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 21st Jun 17, 3:50 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    • #6
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:50 PM
    • #6
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:50 PM
    This is what was sent:

    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No.

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    Notice to Keeper not issued within the mandatory 14 days, as no windscreen PCN was issued.

    'A notice to keeper must be served not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked'

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Jun 17, 3:54 PM
    • 13,586 Posts
    • 21,298 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:54 PM
    • #7
    • 21st Jun 17, 3:54 PM
    That's ok. See how they respond.

    Does their NtK to you have a paragraph at the foot of the first page 'If after 29 days .......', or is there a gap suggesting a whole paragraph has been deleted from the letter?
    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.
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 21st Jun 17, 4:11 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    • #8
    • 21st Jun 17, 4:11 PM
    • #8
    • 21st Jun 17, 4:11 PM
    No, there's no mention of the 29 days on any of the letter...front or back.

    The only noticeable gap I can see is on the back of the letter, under the heading 'PARKING CHARGE INFORMATION'
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Jun 17, 4:17 PM
    • 13,586 Posts
    • 21,298 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 21st Jun 17, 4:17 PM
    • #9
    • 21st Jun 17, 4:17 PM
    No, there's no mention of the 29 days on any of the letter...front or back.

    The only noticeable gap I can see is on the back of the letter, under the heading 'PARKING CHARGE INFORMATION'
    Originally posted by Tun80
    They cannot therefore claim keeper liability as their NtK is non-compliant. You must deal with this as the keeper and never divulge the identity of the driver. You can win this at POPLA.
    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.
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 21st Jun 17, 4:23 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    Thank you very much for your reply Umkomaas...really appreciate it!!

    I'll see what they come back with...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    • 48,084 Posts
    • 61,540 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You have a Golden Ticket! Hooray, you win at POPLA if you word it right!

    The POFA 2012 'keeper liability' stuff goes on the back now, since PE altered their PCN design. People who get one with a gap, as you describe, can win merely by talking about no keeper liability and pointing out to POPLA that it's a non-POFA one.

    I expect PE will write for 'further info' asking who was driving - LoooooLLL!!! Ignore that one, if they send it. Wait for the rejection letter & POPLA code, then come back and we'll help you win.

    You are lucky, a PE Golden Ticket is IMHO, not possible to lose at POPLA with, except for people who say who was driving.
    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.

    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 21st Jun 17, 9:33 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    Thankyou Coupon-mad!!!

    I'll be back as soon as they get in touch
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 7th Jul 17, 4:20 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    Hi guys.

    Okay, got the expected rejection letter with a POPLA reference. Did some scouting around on the forum and came up with the letter below.

    Bit long winded, and seems to be the points most are making...but I'd be grateful if anyone could point out any errors.

    Thanks!!

    I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was NOT the driver.

    I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:


    1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met, as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

    ’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
    The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period…is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper was issued on 10/06/2017, when the actual date of event is recorded as 24/04/2017, a difference of more than 6 WEEKS. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’, it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).
    This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply. Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one with 4 complete paragraphs being omitted from the ‘PARKING CHARGE INFORMATION' section on the reverse side of the notice, and no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot – they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.

    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.''

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''




    3) 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.


    4) The Operator has not shown evidence that the current ANPR system is reliable, accurate or maintained.
    Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
    It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

    This concludes my appeal.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 7th Jul 17, 4:36 PM
    • 9,980 Posts
    • 9,021 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I would put at point 1 the date of contravention and the date on the NtK.

    Then I would state that the NtK failed to meet the POFA requirements to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper. State that you are making no admission as to who was driving.

    Then add, "I quote below the relevant sections from POFA" and then put the legislation in italics.

    Then invite the adjudicator to dismiss.

    Then add I have further points, should you not accept point 1 and then add your other points.

    By folowing that layout, it gives the assessor the get out of reading a load of irrelevant points as point 1 is a winner.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Jul 17, 4:39 PM
    • 14,737 Posts
    • 18,517 Thanks
    Redx
    I would also add a bullet point menu after the opening introduction , before the main points , with the number abd title of each main point

    you will see this in many other popla appeals on here , it allows an assessor to home in on the relevant stuff they may be interested in, as you only need to win on a single point , even if its the last point

    make it easy for the assessor and they are more likely to agree your appeal

    this one won and had some critique added, plus it also covered grace periods too

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5655567

    frankly, I will never understand why people dont do this simple task
    Last edited by Redx; 07-07-2017 at 4:41 PM.
    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
    • Tun80
    • By Tun80 12th Jul 17, 9:07 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Tun80
    Guys, thank you very much for the extra info!!

    Made amendments and submitted appeal this morning.

    See how it goes...

    Thanks to everyone for your help!!
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

2,229Posts Today

7,301Users 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