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
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 29th Aug 17, 9:08 PM
    • 21Posts
    • 8Thanks
    wrighteye1
    POPLA Appeal Help
    • #1
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:08 PM
    POPLA Appeal Help 29th Aug 17 at 9:08 PM
    A couple of months ago we received a parking charge notice while parked at Meadowhall shopping centre. With hindsight, after reading the newbies post, and probably using common sense we should have taken a photo of where we were parked and appealed to the shopping centre management as the ticket was for "parking in a restricted area" which we weren't, we were just parked in a "standard" bay, but we didn't so this is where we are.
    Approximately 6 weeks after the ticket we received the notice to keeper to which we replied and appealed using the BPA template letter on this site, the parking company, CP PLUS Ltd, is a member of the BPA.
    A couple of weeks after that we received an email asking us to confirm the name and address of the driver, which we declined to do.
    A couple of weeks after that we received an email saying the appeal had been rejected, which is at the bottom of this post (with some links removed to allow me to post) and providing us with a POPLA verification code.
    My main question is is it too late to appeal regarding the nature of the notice, i.e. that she wasn't parked in a restricted area and is the onus on them to prove that she was, do they need to have photo evidence or should we have it.
    Any advice on this and the best way to word the POPLA appeal would be gratefully received,

    Thankyou.

    "Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    I have carefully reviewed the case and have considered the points that you raised. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel the PCN and it is still payable. I have explained my findings in more detail below.

    My findings

    The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. As these terms were breached on the date in question, a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued.

    Internet templates

    I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice be sought on this matter as an alternative.

    Signage

    The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

    The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.

    What you need to do now

    You now have three options to choose from:

    1) Pay the PCN at the prevailing sum of £120.00 by 08/09/2017. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to or phone 0208 528 4122. You can find full details of how to pay on the PCN issued to the vehicle and/or on the letter(s) sent if applicable.

    2) Make an appeal to POPLA (Independent Appeals Service) by appealing online at (verification code: ). The only grounds for making an appeal are stated on the website and to be considered the appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA and the appeal is unsuccessful you will be only able to settle the PCN at the full amount of £120.00.

    3) If you choose to not make payment or appeal, the amount outstanding may be sought via a debt recovery company and/or court action where further costs may be incurred as a result.

    More Information

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above."
    Last edited by wrighteye1; 04-09-2017 at 4:54 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 29th Aug 17, 9:22 PM
    • 16,529 Posts
    • 20,691 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:22 PM
    • #2
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:22 PM
    the keeper has 28 days from the rejection to appeal to popla

    so if there is still time to do a popla appeal, draft one up using post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread as a guide

    the "my findings" and £120 has probably come from DRP acting as the back office for CP PLUS

    dont believe all they say
    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
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 30th Aug 17, 12:00 AM
    • 591 Posts
    • 1,535 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #3
    • 30th Aug 17, 12:00 AM
    • #3
    • 30th Aug 17, 12:00 AM
    Check out this ongoing Meadowhall thread

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5689146&highlight=meadowhall

    You've done the right thing not to reveal who was driving and as long as your POPLA Code has not expired, a keeper's "appeal" to POPLA should win on the basis that CP Plus and Debt Recovery Plus (who issued the Notice to Keeper on behalf of CP Plus) did not comply with Schedule 4 of POFA. Stating a Parking Charge of £120 on the Notice to Keeper when the original Parking Charge on the Notice to Driver was only £80 is an obvious POFA fail.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 17, 12:15 AM
    • 51,512 Posts
    • 65,127 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 30th Aug 17, 12:15 AM
    • #4
    • 30th Aug 17, 12:15 AM
    main question is is it too late to appeal regarding the nature of the notice, i.e. that she wasn't parked in a restricted area and is the onus on them to prove that she was, do they need to have photo evidence or should we have it.
    She (appealing and wording it carefully, only as the registered keeper, of course) can add whatever she likes to the POPLA appeal, whether or not it featured in the original appeal.

    Just don't ad lib stuff that implies who was driving. Copy another CP Plus one from recent weeks if there is one on here, or put together the templates from the NEWBIES thread post #3 and show us.

    Her first point will be 'no keeper liability' (as the NTK was far too late and non-POFA in wording)

    then 'appellant not shown to be the individual liable (driver)'

    then 'no evidence that the car was parked in a restricted space' (written by you from scratch, careful with wording though)

    then unclear signage; then no landowner authority, both from the templates in the NEWBIES thread.

    then
    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.

    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 31st Aug 17, 8:27 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    • #5
    • 31st Aug 17, 8:27 PM
    • #5
    • 31st Aug 17, 8:27 PM
    Thanks for your replies, I'll post a draft of my appeal on here when i've done it.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 4th Sep 17, 4:34 PM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    • #6
    • 4th Sep 17, 4:34 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Sep 17, 4:34 PM
    Please edit your original post to remove anything that might identify the driver such as 'my wife', 'she' parked etc.
    Use 'the driver' instead.
    Last edited by RobinofLoxley; 04-09-2017 at 5:18 PM.
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 4th Sep 17, 5:06 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    • #7
    • 4th Sep 17, 5:06 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Sep 17, 5:06 PM
    I am the registered keeper and the driver doesn't work at Meadowhall. The driver had parked there to do some shopping. There is no maximum stay duration in the car park, the shopping centre opens at 9am and the PCN was issued at 9.03.
    Last edited by wrighteye1; 10-09-2017 at 12:38 PM.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 4th Sep 17, 5:23 PM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    • #8
    • 4th Sep 17, 5:23 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Sep 17, 5:23 PM
    OK, you should also edit your last post, remove the first sentence re your wife and just put 'I am the registered keeper'.
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 4th Sep 17, 7:24 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    • #9
    • 4th Sep 17, 7:24 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Sep 17, 7:24 PM
    Coupon mad suggests my first point of appeal should be 'no keeper liability' (as the NTK was far too late and non-POFA in wording) however the initial PCN was issued on the 12/06 and the NTK was issued on the 20/07. I thought they had between 28 and 56 days to issue the NTK, if so then aren't they within the time frame?

    Thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 12:55 AM
    • 51,512 Posts
    • 65,127 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Check out this ongoing Meadowhall thread

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5689146&highlight=meadowhall

    You've done the right thing not to reveal who was driving and as long as your POPLA Code has not expired, a keeper's "appeal" to POPLA should win on the basis that CP Plus and Debt Recovery Plus (who issued the Notice to Keeper on behalf of CP Plus) did not comply with Schedule 4 of POFA. Stating a Parking Charge of £120 on the Notice to Keeper when the original Parking Charge on the Notice to Driver was only £80 is an obvious POFA fail.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    The above explains why the NTK is flawed, as it fails to repeat the info in the PCN (and yes you are right, wrighteye1, it arrived in time if there was a windscreen PCN which I didn't realise was the case).

    It's not just about sending any old thing in time, though!
    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.

    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 5th Sep 17, 1:12 AM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Coupon mad suggests my first point of appeal should be 'no keeper liability' (as the NTK was far too late and non-POFA in wording) however the initial PCN was issued on the 12/06 and the NTK was issued on the 20/07. I thought they had between 28 and 56 days to issue the NTK, if so then aren't they within the time frame?
    Thanks.
    Originally posted by wrighteye1
    I think Coupon-mad may have got mixed up a bit there, probably missed that the car had a NTD windscreen ticket. You're right the NTK does appear to have been sent within the correct time frame.

    Nevertheless there is an issue with the NTK as it's been issued by Parking Collection Services (AKA debt Recovery Plus) and they've bunged on another £40 on top of the £80, increasing the parking charge to £120.00. This is a big no no.
    Section 19.5 of the BPA's CoP says a parking charge should not be more than £100. Also for the NTK to be valid in respect of POFA 2012 Schedule 4 certain conditions must be met. Paragraph 8(2)(d) of the schedule states that the information in the NTK should be the same as specified in the NTD (paragraph 7(2)(c)). The charge specified on the NTK should be £80. This makes the NTK invalid in respect of POFA 2012.

    If you haven't done already download the BPA's Code of practice (link below).

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

    Familiarise yourself with it. All members of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme (CP Plus are) are governed by and must comply with the COP.

    In the COP Appendix C there are all the relevant parts of POFA 2012 Schedule 4. Study this, in particular Paragraphs 6,7 & 8 which refer to NTD's and NTK's.

    In your POPLA appeal points, explain to the assessor all the aspects of the BPA's CoP and POFA 2102 where CP Plus have failed to comply. To help, copy and embed the relevant extracts from the CoP/POFA into your appeal points so the assessor can read them, no links.
    Last edited by RobinofLoxley; 05-09-2017 at 1:14 AM.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 5th Sep 17, 1:16 AM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Ooops sorry Coupon-Mad, you got your post (#10) in while I was writing mine. I've repeated what you have said.
    Last edited by RobinofLoxley; 05-09-2017 at 1:19 AM.
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 5th Sep 17, 6:13 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    I'm just about to start my appeal and there are various boxes I can tick which possibly apply, i.e Not Improperly Parked and The Amount Requested is Incorrect. Do I have to use these or can I just put everything in the "other" box?
    Thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 6:19 PM
    • 51,512 Posts
    • 65,127 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Other - only - which is what post #3 of the NEWBIES thread already says!
    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.

    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 5th Sep 17, 7:58 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Following is what I have put together for my appeal. I would be grateful for any comments on it.
    I have had to remove the links as it won't allow me to post with them in as I am a new user.
    Thanks.

    "As the registered keeper I appeal on the following grounds;

    1. Failure to invoke Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA)
    2. Appellant not shown to be the individual liable (driver)
    3. No evidence that the car was parked in a restricted area.
    4. Unclear and non-compliant signage created no contract with the driver.
    5. No evidence of land owner authority."

    Then I plan to attach the following as a PDF.

    "Point 1.
    The Notice to Keeper includes an inflated charge of £120 and does not repeat the details of the unpaid parking charges specified on the original Notice to Driver (i.e. £80) as required under Paragraph 8 (2) (c) of Schedule 4 of POFA.
    Paragraph 8
    (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6 (1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
    (2) The notice must:
    (c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f)

    Paragraph 7
    (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

    (2) The notice must:
    (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
    (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;
    (c) inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full andspecify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period.

    To complay with POFA the parking charge amount specified in the NTK must be exactly the same as the amount specified in the NTD. The NTK is non POFA compliant on that point alone.

    Point 2.
    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, 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.''
    .
    Point 3.
    The vehicle was not parked in an restricted area at the time of it been issued the PCN.
    The vehicle was parked correctly within the lines of the parking bay provided for free with no maximum stay limit, by the shopping centre for customer parking. I have no evidence of this as CPPLUS never issued any photo evidence with the NTK Letter.

    Point 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

    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:

    LINK REMOVED

    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:

    LINK REMOVED

    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 with a lack of white space as a background. 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:

    LINK REMOVED

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

    LINK REMOVED

    ''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:

    LINK REMOVED

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

    LINK REMOVED

    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.

    Point 5.
    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 resident/customer” exemptions or any site occupier’s “right of veto” charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorized 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 authorized can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorizes 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 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


    Therefore, I require CP PLUS to provide a full and unredacted copy of the current contract with the landowner, signed & dated. I say that 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 a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. 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 - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority."
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 1:35 PM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Do you have the original NTD (windscreen ticket), because if it's the same as one I've seen in another Meadowhall thread, there are potential flaws with it that you could use.

    Re your draft POPLA appeal.

    As well as listing your points at the beginning of the appeal, you should repeat the full point description as a heading before each point.
    i.e. not "Point 3" but "3. No evidence that the car was parked in a restricted area" and perhaps in bold and underlined. This will make it easier for the assessor to access individual points and break up the large amount of text and make it more manageable for them.

    I think you should put some separation between the extracts from POFA and the COP you have quoted, to distinguish it from the rest of the text. Otherwise it's just one big wall of text that's hard to read and follow. Even if it's just done by italicising it with larger margins, though better still contained by borders and maybe a subtle background colour.

    I'm not sure if point #2 is relevant and worth including. Because if the NTK is the same as another one I've seen, in it they state if you do not tell them the name of the driver (which you shouldn't do in any circumstances) they will attempt to recover the charge from you as keeper of the vehicle. They are not chasing you for the parking charge as the driver but the keeper. Although some members might disagree?

    In point #4
    "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"

    I don't think "notorious industry" will endear you to the assessor .

    Also you have put a lot of links to external websites/web pages in there, I doubt the assessor will be bothered to go on the net and look at them.
    Last edited by RobinofLoxley; 06-09-2017 at 2:03 PM.
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 6:41 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    I've uploaded a picture of the ticket using Tinypic but it won't let me post the link on here as I'm a newbie. Tried changing http to hxxp but still wouldn't let me. Any ideas?

    Thanks.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 7:36 PM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    If you post the link substituting hxxp for the http, I or someone else can then convert it back to the original ( don't forget to block out the vehicle registration number and PCN number).
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 7:40 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    The ticket is exactly the same as the one shown in the 2 pictures on link 67 of Pinklady0805's Meadowhall thread. Sorry it won't let me post a link but there's one in post 3 of this thread.

    Thanks.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 7:43 PM
    • 163 Posts
    • 268 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Edit : Sorry you tried that. If that doesn't work maybe copy and paste the link somewhere else, delete the http bit, copy and paste here again and we will add the http.
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

4,757Posts Today

8,908Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GabbyLogan: @MartinSLewis you are just brilliant. Love the format, great pairing with Angelica ????

  • Hi folks. Thanks for watching.am shattered. Hope you enjoyed the show. Must admit can't remember any of it right no? https://t.co/zPn8xwVKqv

  • Anthony here (Martin's tweet-double), signing off now. The next voice you hear will be Martin's. Thanks all and goodnight. #MartinLewis

  • Follow Martin