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
    • Pinklady0805
    • By Pinklady0805 2nd Aug 17, 10:33 PM
    • 88Posts
    • 63Thanks
    Pinklady0805
    Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus
    • #1
    • 2nd Aug 17, 10:33 PM
    Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus 2nd Aug 17 at 10:33 PM
    Hi, can someone give me more advice please ?????

    The situation that myself and many of my work colleagues have found ourselves in, is regarding private land, parking tickets.

    We all work in Meadowhall shopping centre.

    Some time ago there was signs put up in the (non paying and no time limit) customer car parks. The signs stating on duty staff members were no longer permitted to park in the shopping centre car parks, we are to park on waste land that is separate from the actual shopping centre.

    Signs read as follows.....

    This car park is private land and is for the use of Meadowhall shopping centre customers only
    No parking for on duty staff members, contractors or park and ride users.

    Parking terms and conditions
    You agree to pay a parking charge of £80 if you....

    -park in a non designated area
    -park outside of the marked bays
    -park in these areas as an on duty staff member
    -park causing an obstruction to other uses
    -park in a parent and child bay without a child under 5 accompanying you
    -park in a value badge bay without displaying a valid blue badge in conjunction with the blue badge scheme
    -use the car park for any other reason other than shopping in Meadowhall shopping centre
    -park your vehicle and leave the site by other means


    The area that they designated us is not big enough for all the staff members to actually get a space and the area used is a good 15 minute walk away. The area is dark and not seen as a safe area for us to be walking to and from alone. There as been incidences in this area of Women/girls getting approached by strange men, vehicle's getting damaged and staff members injured due to trips and falls on the rubble surface of the car park.
    Due to this many of us have ended up parking in the shopping centre carparks, resulting in CPPlus giving us PNC Notices.

    We are all now facing unpaid parking ticket chargers for sums of £120 up to £18,000+

    I have read through the newbies thread and started my first appeal.
    I appealed to CPPlus they refused to drop the charge but sent me a POPLA code.

    PNC Date of issue 27/05/2017
    Date of sending notice 13/07/2017
    Reason 7 - parked in a restricted area
    Charge £80 now risen to £120

    I am heading in the right direction with something like this as my POPLA Appeal? ....

    Dear sir madam

    As the registered keeper I appeal on the following grounds
    Cp plus's parking charge notice is not compliant with the protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA) due to the date and the wording used. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to receive any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions be met as stated in paragraph 5, 6, 11 and 12. CPPlus have failed to fulfil the conditions which state than an operator must have provided the keeper with a notice of keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set time line 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 Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

    ’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices showing a purported ‘date issued’ which was already past the 14 days by which, under statute, it had to be in my hands/served. Even if they had posted it that day it would be impossible for the notice to have been delivered within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

    In fact, this NTK arrived At lease 47 days after the alleged event. This means that CP Plus have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period. Furthermore, it is clear that CP Plus know this because they have made no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was, which brings me to my next point below.

    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

    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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016.

    Not sure about what else if anyone can suggest where I should look.

    Many thanks p
Page 11
    • Pinklady0805
    • By Pinklady0805 6th Dec 17, 5:56 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    Pinklady0805
    BTW what happened re the small court claims the other girls received in June. Are they still ongoing?
    Both went for mediation, it didn't end to good.
    one of the girls admitted driving, and is waiting for a court date.
    The other girl is waiting for court date too, as no agreement could be made between her and CP Plus. she never named the driver. she has put in a counter claim too for loss of earning.

    CP Plus have issue more staff with court papers this week, unfortunately i don't see them very often to ask how there planning on responding.

    There is currently six of us needing to reply to the SCS letter, we all received them on the same day, so are all working to the same deadline to respond.

    Do you think the response i posted above is enough to reply to the SCS letter for now? or should i reply more robustly from the off?

    another part to add is that 2 of the tickets mentioned on my SCS letter are the ones i won at POPLA
    strange!

    Pinklady
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 6th Dec 17, 7:43 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 50 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    Both went for mediation, it didn't end to good.
    one of the girls admitted driving, and is waiting for a court date.
    The other girl is waiting for court date too, as no agreement could be made between her and CP Plus. she never named the driver. she has put in a counter claim too for loss of earning.

    CP Plus have issue more staff with court papers this week, unfortunately i don't see them very often to ask how there planning on responding.

    There is currently six of us needing to reply to the SCS letter, we all received them on the same day, so are all working to the same deadline to respond.

    Do you think the response i posted above is enough to reply to the SCS letter for now? or should i reply more robustly from the off?

    another part to add is that 2 of the tickets mentioned on my SCS letter are the ones i won at POPLA
    strange!

    Pinklady
    Originally posted by Pinklady0805
    i don’t understand the issue with her admitting she was driving. Why try to hide it? The judges aren’t thick and if everyone is going to turn up to court saying they weren’t driving (even though these are seemingly all multiple PCN’s and in most cases the RK will be the driver) it’s not going to look good, as the judges are free to make up their own minds on the balance of probabilities.

    Focus on the real issues like signage, the rights of the staff to park on shopping days etc.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 17, 9:27 PM
    • 15,932 Posts
    • 24,719 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    As I’ve just said in response to you on another thread, there is no obligation on the driver to ‘out’ him/herself. If the PPC can’t determine who the driver was, Parliament has provided them with the legal means to pursue the keeper - Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    As long as the PPC has sufficient grey matter to produce a PoFA-compliant NtK, there is absolutely no disadvantage in them pursuing the keeper. Whether it’s the driver or the keeper who is liable for the £100 charge. One hundred notes are the same whosever pocket it comes from.

    Sadly (or is that gladly!), PPC-land is so full of numb nuts, that even after 5 years of the PoFA being enacted, more than half of them still don’t understand it.

    Pitiful.
    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.
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 6th Dec 17, 10:25 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 50 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    As I’ve just said in response to you on another thread, there is no obligation on the driver to ‘out’ him/herself. If the PPC can’t determine who the driver was, Parliament has provided them with the legal means to pursue the keeper - Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    As long as the PPC has sufficient grey matter to produce a PoFA-compliant NtK, there is absolutely no disadvantage in them pursuing the keeper. Whether it’s the driver or the keeper who is liable for the £100 charge. One hundred notes are the same whosever pocket it comes from.

    Sadly (or is that gladly!), PPC-land is so full of numb nuts, that even after 5 years of the PoFA being enacted, more than half of them still don’t understand it.

    Pitiful.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks for the response, but from a “real world” perspective if you WERE the driver and you ended up in court, and the judge asked if you were driving, how would you respond?

    On MSE forum it looks like the default message is to tell people to be evasive on this point. In my opinion this is the wrong advice, as most people who come here were actually the driver and by potentially lying on this point you are leaving yourself open to the Judge or Sheriff seeing you as not credible.

    If you weren’t the driver then obviously use the argument! But I suspect most people here also driving, and MSE is not making it clear what the potential consequences are of going down that path.

    Focus on the real winning points like poor signage etc.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 17, 10:38 PM
    • 15,932 Posts
    • 24,719 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thanks for the response, but from a “real world” perspective if you WERE the driver and you ended up in court, and the judge asked if you were driving, how would you respond?
    It’s never going to happen - I’m much too sharp for a numb nut PPC to catch me out! And for much of the year they’d need to travel to the other side of the world to try.

    If the PPC can possibly get the NtK PoFA-compliant, there is no need for any judge to ask that question.

    As I’ve said, the law was changed to tip the balance in favour of the PPCs in October 2012, the fact that even after 5 years they still can’t get it right, hardly gives them any credibility in pursuing, often, the wrong person. Why should someone they are trying to drag £100 out of give them any help whatsoever? Would you walk by the mugging of a vulnerable person? Seems that you just might.

    The forum was on to this within a few weeks of the Act’s implementation, yet despite constant losses at POPLA on Keeper Liability failures over the past 5 years, the skull remains unbelievably dense, unresponsive and devoid of any idea as to what is going on, but which is evidently right in front of its nose! The lights may be on, but there’s nobody in!

    Utterly embarrassing!
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 06-12-2017 at 10:54 PM.
    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.
    • Parking Eyerate
    • By Parking Eyerate 6th Dec 17, 11:10 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Parking Eyerate
    Reply to Ryandavis1959
    Personally, if I were the driver and I ended up in a court and a judge asked me who was driving, if I did not want to make it known that I was driving I would certainly not lie but would simply say, politely and firmly, that I have no intention of identifying the driver and I believe I am under absolutely no legal obligation to do so.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 11:30 PM
    • 16,923 Posts
    • 21,048 Thanks
    Redx
    nobody on here encourages people to lie , that is a lie in itself

    in a criminal case a defendant being questioned is told to say "no comment" by the legal eagle because they may incriminate themselves

    now they may lie to the police and may lie in court (like chris and vicky huhne) but it is not recommended

    the general rule in law is

    prove your case against me, I will not do it for you

    we encourage people to speak in lawyer speak or politician speak because that is an accepted practice

    when good practice is used , it is up to a PPC to prove their case and the apellant has no legal obligation to help them achieve their goals

    you would think that after over 5 years (62 months) these numbskulls would be aware of and understand POFA2012 such that the issue of who was driving would become irrelevant

    yet even Parking Eye fail on many occasions to invoke POFA2012

    as for who was driving , I know very few people who are the sole drivers of their vehicles , but I know many people who can legally drive their own vehicle , their partners vehicle , plus anyone elses vehicle under 3rd party insurance

    almost every family member and friend I know has multiple drivers on their vehicles

    I am the keeper of my vehicle, yet my partner probably drives it more than me , sometimes I drive to a location and she drives back, because she does not drink alcohol and I do

    but I would be the person receiving the NTK

    and what would happen if my partner drove and parked on my local PE retail park in a morning , then I went there in the afternoon , within 2 hours , thereby breaking their signage rule ?

    who was the driver , how would the keeper know that the driver parked there when she said she was going shopping ?

    its not as black and white as people think, but if a parking company is stupidly NOT relying on the law of the land after 62 months , then more fool them
    Last edited by Redx; 06-12-2017 at 11:32 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
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Dec 17, 11:32 PM
    • 6,476 Posts
    • 8,306 Thanks
    beamerguy
    If you don’t like my advice then why don’t we debate the matter, rather than you flaming and trolling my every post?

    How would you respond in court if you WERE the driver and a Judge asked you if you were the driver?
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959
    There can be no debate we must protect posters on here
    against bad advice.

    Trolling is the wrong word, its a reply pointing out
    that your advice is wrong and as you will agree, that is
    not good for the forum

    If indeed it is your agenda to give wrong information on your
    numerous posts, then you must expect the respected members
    on this forum to tell you so, as they do
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Dec 17, 11:40 PM
    • 6,476 Posts
    • 8,306 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I believe I am under absolutely no legal obligation to do so.
    Originally posted by Parking Eyerate
    And that has already been said to a judge who said
    no more ..... case dismissed
    Last edited by beamerguy; 06-12-2017 at 11:42 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Dec 17, 7:42 AM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,221 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Ryan - obvious stooge is obvious.

    I would ask the claimant to prove their case. It is their burden of proof to identify the driver, not mine, or they could stop being thick and use pofa. It’s incredibly easy to comply with pofa, yet so many PPC are too idiotic to do so. Or can’t be bothered to do so.
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

3,725Posts Today

6,873Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • RT @thismorning: With his last deals of the year, @MartinSLewis wishes us all a 'very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a wonderful and?

  • RT @stoneygran: @MartinSLewis I furtively used a pub toilet last night before getting on the bus and felt really guilty!

  • Follow Martin