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
    • zippy1810
    • By zippy1810 10th Aug 17, 2:05 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 0Thanks
    zippy1810
    UKPC refusal to provide POPLA code
    • #1
    • 10th Aug 17, 2:05 PM
    UKPC refusal to provide POPLA code 10th Aug 17 at 2:05 PM
    Hi everyone,

    About a month ago I received a UKPC PCN (Parking Charge Notice).

    Don't want to bore you all with too much detail, however I just want to paint the picture, hoping someone can help me with my appeal.

    I was parked temporarily in an unmarked placed, due to no other spaces being available, for no more than 1 hour outside a friends flat, for which they had given me there visitors parking permit to show that I was visiting.

    Within arriving and leaving I was blind to the fact that a parking attendant had come and gone and placed a ticket on my car. Talk about bad timing.....!!

    However from conducting some research in to the laws about parking on private land and the signage which has to be visually obvious, I concluded that the signs implemented by UKPC were neither obvious, especially when driving in to the area and neither were they of reasonable height to be clear enough, given that the small print is a ridiculous size.

    On this basis I proceeded to appeal to UKPC with the following letter:

    Dear Sir / Madam

    Re: PCN No. ........................

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

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as in the established case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers let alone visibly obvious to drivers. This is apparent in the two attached photos.

    The driver displayed a valid visitors permit, as can be seen from the photos taken by your attendant and was only visiting the premises temporarily at the time the ticket was issued.

    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.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    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 Data Protection Act. You are required to respond in writing to the address below within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,


    ---------------

    Because my vehicle is a company vehicle it is in the company name. However from obtaining my first response from UKPC they have refused to offer me a POPLA code until a valid named driver of the vehicle is given.

    Am I obliged to give this and if not am I still entitled to the POPLA code?

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Page 1
    • waamo
    • By waamo 10th Aug 17, 2:38 PM
    • 2,018 Posts
    • 2,437 Thanks
    waamo
    • #2
    • 10th Aug 17, 2:38 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Aug 17, 2:38 PM
    Report them to the BPA and DVLA. Details are in this forum. Tell them that you have appealed and not recieved a POLA code. There is no obligation to name a driver and they know it.

    Whilst you aren't the registered keeper I assuming they don't know that?
    This space for hire.
    • mrt72
    • By mrt72 10th Aug 17, 3:26 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    mrt72
    • #3
    • 10th Aug 17, 3:26 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Aug 17, 3:26 PM
    As per the usual advice you might want to edit your post so there's no identification of the driver?
    • zippy1810
    • By zippy1810 14th Aug 17, 2:12 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zippy1810
    • #4
    • 14th Aug 17, 2:12 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Aug 17, 2:12 PM
    UKPC are aware of who the registered keeper is, however are not aware of the vehicles driver.


    What does this mean?
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 14th Aug 17, 3:49 PM
    • 2,413 Posts
    • 3,640 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #5
    • 14th Aug 17, 3:49 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Aug 17, 3:49 PM
    UKPC are aware of who the registered keeper is, however are not aware of the vehicles driver.


    What does this mean?
    Originally posted by zippy1810
    Exactly what it says; the DVLA will tell them for a fee who the keeper is but how on earth would they know who the driver was?

    UKPC always fish for the driver's details, it makes it easier for them, but they have no legal right to demand this information.
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 14th Aug 17, 4:20 PM
    • 3,198 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #6
    • 14th Aug 17, 4:20 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Aug 17, 4:20 PM
    If you ignore the interim letter and wait for the formal rejection, THAT should have a POPLA code. If you haven't received the formal rejection (or cancellation) within, say, 40 days from appealing ... complain to the BPA.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Aug 17, 12:35 AM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:35 AM
    • #7
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:35 AM
    This happens all the time in UKPC cases, if you'd read other threads about UKPC you'd know to ignore that and just be patient and wait for the rejection letter and POPLA code, which WILL follow.

    This is nothing new, nothing difficult, and nothing to start a thread about, but do come back here at POPLA stage to show us your draft POPLA appeal.
    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.

    • zippy1810
    • By zippy1810 21st Aug 17, 2:24 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zippy1810
    • #8
    • 21st Aug 17, 2:24 PM
    • #8
    • 21st Aug 17, 2:24 PM
    I've finally received the POPLA code, however the one thing that wasn't followed was the whole waiting game which I was a little hasty and impatient about.


    In terms of the NTK what officially constitutes as an NTK?


    The first letter received without the POPLA code was 35 days after the date the ticket was issued, however that includes weekends. On the POFA under Paragraph 9 (6) it suggests week days only, am I miss reading something here?


    I received a second letter 2 days after that, and then the most recent letter with the POPLA code was received a further 14 days later.


    Having not stuck to the Newbies thread of waiting, does this hinder me in anyway even though I have only addressed all correspondence as The Keeper?


    Thanks
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 21st Aug 17, 3:03 PM
    • 504 Posts
    • 601 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #9
    • 21st Aug 17, 3:03 PM
    • #9
    • 21st Aug 17, 3:03 PM
    The NTK is the first Notice sent directly to the Keeper following them getting data from the DVLA on the RK.

    No, it does not include week days only> it is calendar days.
    • zippy1810
    • By zippy1810 21st Aug 17, 5:18 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zippy1810
    Thank you noferatu10.


    Therefore I presume that it makes no difference to the appeal that the PPC first contacted the RK after 35 days?


    I'll do some digging around on POPLA templates and do a draft, for which I'd be grateful if it could be proof read and adjusted if be.
    • zippy1810
    • By zippy1810 23rd Aug 17, 5:08 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zippy1810
    Further to the last post, a big error of judgement was made, in that the second letter received to the RK was in fact the NTK.


    Because this has been sent within 56 days, please can someone advise on where one stand with this?


    As the saying goes 'always read the small print!!!'


    As there has been no mention of the driver, is the following POPLA template sufficient for this appeal, although UKPC have referenced all letters with the Company name of the registered keeper?


    Your advice is greatly appreciated.




    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle **** *** and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:


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

    4. 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



    1. 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.

    (How should this paragraph be re-worded as an NTK has been issued?)

    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.''

    2. 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

    3. 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:

    WEB LINK as per template

    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:

    WEB LINK as per template

    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. 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, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention 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 - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked 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, the parking charge itself.

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

    WEB LINK as per template

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    WEB LINK as per template

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    WEB LINK as per template

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    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 judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    WEB LINK as per template

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 24th Aug 17, 2:50 AM
    • 504 Posts
    • 601 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Has a VALID NtK been issued?
    All we know is that it was indeed 56 days. That doesn't make it de facto valid !has it met EVERY requirement of pofa schedule 4 para 8?

    Don't edit the first point unless you've checked it was valid first....
    • zippy1810
    • By zippy1810 7th Sep 17, 1:12 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    zippy1810
    Hi all,


    I have recently submitted my POPLA appeal and upon going through the laborious process they make you undertake, I have not given a valid email address as I do not wish to be contacted by email.


    Does this make the process longer in terms of receiving a reply?


    Additionally how long after submission do POPLA usually reply, is there a specific time line for which they must repy?


    As always your help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 7th Sep 17, 1:17 PM
    • 3,198 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    DoaM
    An email address (even a throwaway one) would have been useful. That way you're notified more quickly - especially if the PPC challenges the appeal and you need to review their evidence pack to rebut it.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 6:47 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have recently submitted my POPLA appeal and upon going through the laborious process they make you undertake, I have not given a valid email address as I do not wish to be contacted by email.
    Originally posted by zippy1810
    Oh dear, not good.

    Now you will not know what stage the appeal is at, and will not know when the PPC uploads their evidence to the Portal, and presumably you have not been sent anything by POPLA to tell you your password to log into the Portal to follow the progress/check if the PPC contest it.

    All you needed was a throwaway Hotmail addy just for this purpose, and check it 2 or 3 times a week.

    How will you keep tabs on this, or seize the chance to comment on the PPC's evidence?
    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.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 7th Sep 17, 6:54 PM
    • 5,962 Posts
    • 7,684 Thanks
    beamerguy
    For those who are not savvy with email, Gmail is probably
    the best because you can select forwarding to your own email.
    so you will always get notification
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

154Posts Today

1,419Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Follow Martin