Complaining first ?

Thank you, I will do.

Hi, it's now day 56 and no NTK received. I've drafted the following for POPLA and would be very grateful if one of you lovely people could take a look and advise whether it is good to go please. I'm sending in 2 parts as it is very long. Many thanks in advance :

Dear Sir / Madam,

This appeal is placed on the following grounds:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3. The location in question is not relevant land
4. No Authority
5. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Indigo and the driver
6. No working payment machines in the vicinity on three different floors of the car park
7. No person or body other than the Courts can impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), 14(2) or 14(3) of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

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

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

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

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

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

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


2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 because the fact remains I am only 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.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

In addition, sites designated as Railways by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. 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.


3. The location in question is not relevant land (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).

The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it is owned by Govia Thameslink Railway and is subject to the Railway Byelaws. The Operator is not the owner of the land in question, and therefore does not provide any consideration which may form a contract with motorists. Any consideration, in the form of a parking space, is provided by the landowner, in this case Govia Thameslink Railway, and any liquidated damages for breach of contract would be owed to the landowner, not to the Operator. The Operator has provided no details showing their authority to exercise parking controls on railway land, nor provided contact details at the Govia Thameslink Railway to whom I can direct a complaint.

The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) states in section 7.1 “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.”

The Operator has not provided an unredacted copy of such authorization. In the event that proof of such authorization can be provided I challenge it’s validity should the date of commencement, termination date and validity of the signatories identity of the contract be unclear. The Operator has failed to comply with any such authorization by breaching BPA code of practice as identified under item’s 2, 5, 6 and 7. Furthermore the operator has omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.


4. No Authority

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. I do not believe that Indigo has landowner authority and, as such; the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

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

Indigo are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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 any landholder). 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 otherwise there is no authority.

As Indigo do not have proprietary interest in the land , I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

Indigo has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

As a third party payment system is operational at this location, any landowner contract and supplementary site specific user manual, must also provide evidence that this company has a contract with the landowner permitting the following:
a) payments by this system
b) Indigo have a contractual agreement with the pay by phone company granting this consent for use at this location.
c) No DPA rights have been contravened as a consequence of using such a system
d) Full planning consent is in force for the signage at the location.