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
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 17th Jul 17, 3:42 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 12Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    Secure A Space !help with POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 17th Jul 17, 3:42 PM
    Secure A Space !help with POPLA appeal 17th Jul 17 at 3:42 PM
    As keeper of a vehicle that was issued by a Parking Charge Notice by Secure A Space on 30 May 2017 in the North London Business Park in Barnet, I am seeking help from the forum on how to formulate an appeal to POLA.

    The vehicle in question was parked in a bay clearly marked with a large white "V" on the ground immediately in front of the building that was to be visited, and directly above the parking space is a sign that says "Parking for Building 3 Only". There was no Secure A Space sign in close proximity to this space. The driver visited the building for no more than 20 minutes and returned to the vehicle to find a Parking Charge Notice attached to the windscreen.

    The keeper made an appeal to Secure A Space right away (at that point not having read the advice here on the forum to wait until day 26, unfortunately). The grounds for the appeal were:

    1. The charge of 100 is disproportionate given the vehicle was parked for such a short space of time and cannot be based upon any commercially justifiable loss to the landowner.
    2. There was insufficient signage in the car park such that the driver did not see the signage. There was no signage in the area surrounding the bay in which the vehicle was parked, which was clearly indicated as a Visitors' bay, that a fee was payable.

    Secure A Space acknowledged receipt of the appeal and sent a PDF attached to an email on 4 July notifying that a decision would be rendered in the meantime. In the meantime, on 7 July, a Notice to Keeper document was received from Parking Collection Services (PCS), dated 4 July. The keeper submitted the same appeals material through the PCS's web site but no response was received.

    Secure A Space has sent its appeal decision today and has of course rejected the appeal. The decision includes images of the signage though not showing the proximity of the signage to the parked vehicle. One of the photos they have included clearly shows both the "V" in the parking bay and the sign on the wall immediately in front of the bay that states that the parking space is for Building 3 Only, but which does not include any information concerning the charges for parking etc. The first photo has the timestamp 14:52 and the latest one, with the PCN on the windscreen, at 15:10.

    A 10-digit POPLA code has been provided by Secure A Space and the keeper is now seeking to formulate an appeal.

    The keeper would appreciate any help from the experts here on the forum about how to proceed with putting together an appropriate letter to POPLA.

    Many thanks!
    - PVJ
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Jul 17, 3:55 PM
    • 15,528 Posts
    • 24,249 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 17th Jul 17, 3:55 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Jul 17, 3:55 PM
    Standard advice for developing a POPLA appeal is given in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3, which includes ready to use template appeal points around which to formulate your own appeal. They can be copied and pasted as they stand, provided they relate to your parking event (in most cases they do).

    1. The charge of 100 is disproportionate given the vehicle was parked for such a short space of time and cannot be based upon any commercially justifiable loss to the landowner
    Sorry, but a dead in the water argument since the ParkingEye v Beavis case. Not to be used in a POPLA appeal, as they have in the past just homed in on it (ignoring everything else in the appeal) and rejected.

    Let us see your draft for critique and fine tuning.

    Do not miss your POPLA deadline.
    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.
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 17th Jul 17, 4:26 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • #3
    • 17th Jul 17, 4:26 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Jul 17, 4:26 PM
    Thanks, Umkomaas. The appeals rejection from Secure A Space certainly did mention the Parking Eye vs. Beavis case. Good to know that this should be excluded from the POPLA appeal.

    The keeper has not yet written to the landowner to make a formal complaint, but will do so now.
    Last edited by ProstetnicVogonJeltz; 17-07-2017 at 5:01 PM.
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 17th Jul 17, 5:49 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • #4
    • 17th Jul 17, 5:49 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Jul 17, 5:49 PM
    I have drafted my POPLA Appeal based on the information found in the #3 post in the newbies thread. Please give me some feedback!

    http : // s000.tinyupload.com/index.php ? file_id=70400658144725346286

    (Apologies for the spaces in the URL, but as a newbie I'm not allowed to post links.)

    Thanks very much for your help.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 17th Jul 17, 6:38 PM
    • 33,260 Posts
    • 17,197 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 17th Jul 17, 6:38 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Jul 17, 6:38 PM
    Post it here (with nothing to identify you showing)
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 17th Jul 17, 7:59 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • #6
    • 17th Jul 17, 7:59 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Jul 17, 7:59 PM
    For some reason I'm unable to post... Can you look at the PDF linked in my previous reply?

    Thanks!
    -PVJ
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 17th Jul 17, 7:59 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • #7
    • 17th Jul 17, 7:59 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Jul 17, 7:59 PM
    I think the issue is possibly that the message I'm trying to post is too long !it's about 3000 words.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jul 17, 8:02 PM
    • 51,536 Posts
    • 65,141 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 17th Jul 17, 8:02 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Jul 17, 8:02 PM
    Then split it between 2 posts like most people do.

    Or (spare us all the usual stuff please) if you are using the templates from the NEWBIES thread, just put 'signage template from the NEWBIES thread' (not all the wording).
    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.

    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 17th Jul 17, 8:10 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • #9
    • 17th Jul 17, 8:10 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Jul 17, 8:10 PM
    Thanks for the pointers. So here's what I've written:

    Thanks, Quentin. Here it is:

    Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXXXX
    POPLA Case Verification Code 73XXXXXX01


    Site: NLBP N11 1NP
    Issue date: 30 May 2017

    I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing this parking charge from Secure A Space at the North London Business Park, N11 1NP. To protect the driver, they have not been named.

    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:

    1. 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

    information about signage as linked to from #3 in the Newbies thread

    In this specific case, even the operators own photographic evidence clearly shows that an unrelated sign stating that the marked bay was for users of Building 3 Only is clearly displayed directly next to the bay chosen by the driver, but the operator has not placed a sign setting out the terms and conditions for parking in the same place, which creates confusion about the parking arrangements for that bay.

    image of vehicle in marked bay, with confusing sign ringed in red

    (This photograph was provided as evidence by the operator: red ring added by me.)

    info about letter height visibility follows

    2. No reasonable grace period allowed

    The operators signs were not located close enough to the parking bay chosen by the driver to be visible. The British Parking Association Code of Practice section 13.2 states:

    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.

    The driver vacated the car park immediately after becoming aware of the parking restrictions. However, the driver only became aware of the parking restrictions when returning to the vehicle after less than 20 minutes by the presence of the Parking Charge Notice on the car windscreen. The driver did not see any signs placed by the operator until leaving the car park.

    As such, the driver was not given sufficient time to read the signs when first accessing the site and could not reasonably have been aware of these contractual terms before parking.

    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    info about landowner authority from #3 in Newbies thread follows

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

    info about keeper liability from #3 in Newbies thread follows

    In the light of the above reasons, I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Secure A Space to cancel this invalid Parking Charge Notice with immediate effect.
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 19th Jul 17, 12:14 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    I hate to bump this thread, but do any of the regular forumites have any feedback on my POPLA appeal, or should I just go ahead and submit it? Thanks again!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jul 17, 12:22 AM
    • 51,536 Posts
    • 65,141 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would remove this line, do not say how long the car was there:
    However, the driver only became aware of the parking restrictions when returning to the vehicle after less than 20 minutes by the presence of the Parking Charge Notice on the car windscreen.
    Save it as a PDF and upload it under OTHER (only 'other') on POPLA's website.
    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.

    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 19th Jul 17, 12:29 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    Thanks, Coupon-mad. I will do so, and report back in due course.
    • paulT
    • By paulT 19th Jul 17, 12:26 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    paulT
    If you're interested I had exactly the same situation at NLBP - and won with my POPLA appeal. I have a PDF copy which has photos as well. If someone can tell me how I can upload it - I will, or I can just post the text I sent.
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 7th Aug 17, 9:41 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    Hello everybody. I need to resurrect this thread as I have just received notification from POPLA of the operator's response. They have supplied no fewer than 26 documents as evidence to counter my appeal, including all correspondence we've exchanged, including the original PCN, my appeal as registered keeper, the NTK, my NTK response, 13 photos of the keeper's vehicle (including some rather invasive shots of the interior of the vehicle), photos of the signs at the site entrance and the signs situated on site, the signed agreement with the landowner, and the heads of terms of the contract they have with the landowner.

    I have been given 7 days to respond, but I'm really not sure what my next move should be. Can anybody please provide some further advice?

    Many thanks!
    -PVJ
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Aug 17, 9:48 PM
    • 16,555 Posts
    • 20,710 Thanks
    Redx
    read any POPLA REBUTTALS POSTS on here over the last few months and try to refute any points the PPC are making , any errors, if they dont have a valid and signed landholder contract , signage issues , POFA or NTK failures etc
    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
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 7th Aug 17, 10:35 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    I've been doing some reading around some recent threads with rebuttals in, and I'm not sure any of the things I've seen so far seem to apply.

    The main points of Secure A Space's response to the keeper's appeal are:

    1. Vehicle was observed at 14.52 and PCN issued at 15.10 after 17 minutes.
    2. Vehicle was parked in area allocated for specific permit holders only, and vehicle did not show corresponding permit.
    3. Nearest sign setting out terms and conditions was close to the vehicle.
    4. Sign at entrance is a "P" style entrance sign, which says "Parking in allocated bays only" and states to see further signs inside the site for full terms and conditions. This photo dates from 2015, but operator says that parking attendant cannot be expected to take a photo for every ticket because of the size of the site.
    5. Entrance sign meets all criteria set by BPA and has been audited annually.
    6. There is no provision in the guidelines for a sign being a certain distance from security hut (the driver had to speak to a security person to gain access to the site and hence did not see the "P" style sign).
    7. Keeper's failure to provide driver details "has refused to enter into the spirit of the legislation provided".
    8. No charges were escalated during the process of issuing NTK, in accordance with POFA 2012 Schedule 4.
    9. "We have seen identical appeal templates to this one previously which would indicate it has been taken from an internet forum or similar."
    10. Sign in front of the vehicle (which does not show any of the operators' terms and conditions) is "a general additional sign, provided by the Managing Agent."
    11. It is not practical to have a sign in front of every bay on the site, neither is it necessary according to best practise and code of practice guidelines.
    12. More than adequate grace period was provided by the attendant.
    13. In refutation of the keeper's assertion that the Parking Eye vs. Beavis judgement is not relevant:

    "Whilst I note that the appellant believes there are not enough similarities between this case and the Parking Eye v Beavis case, hundreds of previous similar cases have been adjudicated by POPLA and have found to be similar enough for this ruling to be relied upon in similar circumstances and appeals. These have included the same sign wording and vehicles parked in a similar location such as case number 7310587008 as an example. Many important parts of the Contractual Agreement terms on the sign used by Parking Eye in the Beavis vs Parking Eye (example as provided by the Appellant) are in a much smaller font than our design attached. This includes but is not limited to, the most important fact that the area is private land and the operator contact details to check on any areas of the contract the driver may wish verify with the Parking Management Company regarding. All signs are designed slightly differently however they have met the British Parking Association’s code of practice upon audit, as has our sign design."

    14. Copy of contract with landowner dated April 2015. (Name of company on the handwritten agreement is almost illegible, but it does indeed appear to be the name of the landowner, Comer Property Management Ltd.)

    The only points that I can currently think of how to respond are as follows:

    3. The photograph showing the nearest sign to the bay in which the vehicle was parked shows that the sign would be completely illegible from the driver's perspective. The operator's sign is directly below a one of the "general additional signs" that just says "Building 3 Parking Only" with no terms and conditions, just like the "general additional sign" that is placed directly in front of the bay in which the vehicle was parked, where there was no operator sign specifying the terms and conditions.

    7. It doesn't matter whether the keeper has entered into the "spirit" of the legislation: what matters under POFA 2012 section 4 is whether or not the operator has been able to prove that the keeper of the vehicle was the driver. The operator states that they have not escalated the charges when issuing the NTK as this is "a formal step to be followed when an appellant is not cooperating in the spirit of the above legislation".

    9. When a person is being pursued aggressively by a collections agency, the keeper should be entitled to use any and all resources at his or her disposal to counter the unfair and stressful pursuit of an unpaid invoice, including consulting with other people who have had similar experience, and relevant legal precedent and regulations. Simply because similar grounds for appeal have been used before does not render those grounds invalid.

    I don't feel confident about the above points –!does anybody have any further advice?

    Thanks,
    –PVJ
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Aug 17, 11:03 PM
    • 16,555 Posts
    • 20,710 Thanks
    Redx
    a few comments from me

    if the space was for permit holders only and no contract was offered to anyone else then its a forbidding sign meaning no parking contract was agreed or entered into , meaning the penalty rule is engaged under BEAVIS

    so look up forbidding signs and comment , because only the landholder can sue for trespass if that is what it was, and only for a nominal sum

    so definitely call into question the signage

    check the contract for length of contract , not just if its signed and dated , also checking for if the landholder signed it or some flunkey - if its illegible , say so , say its not clear who signed it or what position of authority they hold

    put them to strict proof under POFA2012 , its what the law actually says, not "the spirit" , they must comply fully in order to hold a keeper liable for the actions of a driver - you are not compelled under any law to name the driver

    it is for the PPC to prove their case , or its case dismissed
    Last edited by Redx; 07-08-2017 at 11:07 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
    • ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    • By ProstetnicVogonJeltz 7th Aug 17, 11:23 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    ProstetnicVogonJeltz
    Thanks, Redx. Regarding the contract, the names of the parties signing the contract for both the operator and the landowner are completely indistinct, so it is certainly impossible for me either to identify either party or to assess whether they had sufficient authority to sign it. The agreement itself states that it is valid for a minimum period of one year and then continues unless terminated by either party.

    Re: the POFA 2012 compliance, I do not think that the NTK correctly identified "The period the car was parked" –!it merely specifies the time at which the ticket was issued, not the period for which the vehicle was parked. Furthermore, the NTK is obliged to "Specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover": however, all the NTK says is that "we will also pass the case to a debt collector where further costs may be added", with nothing about the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover. (I have used parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/ keeper-liability-explained/ as the source of my understanding of exactly what a NTK must contain in order to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012.)

    Re: forbidding signs, I'm not sure: the operator's sign states "A Valid Secure A Space authorised permit must be displayed in the front windscreen at all times. Vehicles displaying area specific permits must park in the corresponding bay or area as follows... Site P&D Permit - WHITE bays".

    So the parking was indeed for permit holders only, but the kind of permit that was necessary to hold is a "Site P&D Permit", which the driver could have purchased had he/she been made aware of the necessity to do so by sufficient signage close to the parking area.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Aug 17, 11:30 PM
    • 16,555 Posts
    • 20,710 Thanks
    Redx
    so make these points clear in your rebuttal , you know the site better than us , so construct your rebuttal to include what you think my comments amount to in actual fact

    but you seem to be on the right track so far , especially on the contract and signage inadequacies
    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
    • paulT
    • By paulT 8th Aug 17, 1:10 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    paulT
    Hi - I am assisting another 'keeper' who has almost an identical appeal as this one.
    Initial POPLA appeal sent to POPLA
    POPLA reply with SecureaSpace's 'evidence' lots of photos around the car (which clearly show poor lighting etc), a generic sign which could have been taken anywhere.
    The 'Contract' contains a cover sheet with signatures, but refers to 'Schedule 1 and its special conditions' - which isn't included in the other Contract Terms. The Contract Terms do not even refer to NLBP.
    I know that SecureaSpace do not have any right to police any of the bays that are allocated for Barnet Council staff and there are also other bays which have a rectangular patch painted in front of them which are purple and orange - these colours aren't even mentioned on any signs - therefore in their Case Summary they blatantly lie when they state they are responsible for the whole of NLBP.

    The site map shows a few 'X's (7 in total) around the entire Carpark - clearly indicating sparce signage

    The copy of NTK appears to be non compliant.

    If anyone could tell me how to upload these redacted (by me) files - I will. !!!!!!! doesn't appear to work for me as it just keeps trying to redirect me to Spam sites

    Otherwise do we refer to each piece of evidence and where it is refuted in the original Appeal - or repeat the pertinent parts of the original Appeal - this being the very long winded Appeal suggested in this forum?
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

3,988Posts Today

9,608Users online

Martin's Twitter