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
    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 9th Jan 18, 6:43 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Tiny99
    POPLA appeal help. UKPC PCN in free shoppers car park
    • #1
    • 9th Jan 18, 6:43 PM
    POPLA appeal help. UKPC PCN in free shoppers car park 9th Jan 18 at 6:43 PM
    I appealed a PCN issued by UKPC in a free shopping centre car park with the reason 'not parked within a marked bay'
    The place the car was parked has always been used to park by shoppers and there are no red lines (as there are elsewhere) to show you not to park.
    It appears they have started to enforce different rules under the banner of needing to be in a marked bay (have photos of many other cars doing the same on multiple days so would support argument this is not clear & they are profiting from this).

    I have taken photos of the sign which is not visible/readable from the car and also the volume of other cars parked there whilst there are no cars on the stretch marked with red markings.

    I appealed online & it has been declined with references to Parking Eye vs Beavis 2016 re. charges as well as stating their signage is compliant they would disclose the contract with the land owner to independent assessors etc..

    The UKPC letter rejecting the appeal is dated 22 Nov but did not arrive until 19/20 Dec as the address was incomplete. I called POPLA and they told me to email UKPC to get a new Ref number as it has expired but there was no email address and they did not respond via phone. When eventually I got through they stated it had been sent to a debt collection agency and would not do anything. The fact that they have sent the letter to an incomplete address which therefore did not arrive did not bother them. I tried the shopping centre to no avail & will try again to make them see just how stressful this is for their customers.

    I have spoken to POPLA and sent a copy of the rejection letter showing the incomplete address & they have given me a week to appeal to them in writing.

    This gives me very little time and I have spent hours reading the posts/newbies section and would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge than I could confirm the points that are relevant to include?


    I have noted:
    - Signage is unclear / not visible
    - Red lines are used elsewhere to show restricted areas - this is not the case here
    - Custom and practise has been changed as you were always previously able to park here

    How can I argue the fact that it is unfair that I have been denied 28 days to respond?
    Is it relevant that money was spent in the retail centre & if so should receipts be attached.
    Happy to review threads if you could point me in the right direction

    Any help would be much appreciated.
    Thanks
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 9th Jan 18, 7:01 PM
    • 40,755 Posts
    • 81,353 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:01 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:01 PM
    Did you appeal to the PPC as keeper or driver? Hopefully the former.

    The normal appeal points are, Not the landowner, No standing to issue charges in their own name, Not the same as Beavis, Inadequate signage, an Non POFA compliant NTK (if you didn't reveal the driver's identity) and any others that are relevant.

    Use as many of the template appeal points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES then post your draft here for checking.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 9th Jan 18, 7:39 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:39 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:39 PM
    It was appealed as the keeper.


    I will draft a response and post, thank you for your help.


    Just one question as I don't understand the detail fully - what specifically makes the NTK non compliant?


    Thanks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Jan 18, 7:45 PM
    • 17,202 Posts
    • 21,499 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:45 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Jan 18, 7:45 PM
    if it fails to follow the information laid down in POFA2012 , schedule 4

    it can only be POFA2012 compliant if it follows all of the rules laid down in that act of parliament

    so if it doesnt , it fails , even if it only fails on wording or doesnt get to the recipient in the correct timeframe , or both
    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
    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 9th Jan 18, 11:32 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    • #5
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:32 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:32 PM
    First draft of response below. I will add photos and dates etc..
    I am not sure if I have duplicated the points in 4a and b and would be so grateful for anyone that could spare the time to check whether this is appropriate and provide any feedback before I submit it.
    This is clearly not my area of expertise and I know it is long, so a big thank you as I appreciate your time.




    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of lease vehicle T12 NYA and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC to you via post as UKPC issued a letter rejecting the appeal (dated 22/11/17) to an incomplete address and the letter was not received at the correct address until the 20/12/17. The POPLA Reference number would not work and having called POPLA on XXXX I was advised to email UKPC to explain and request they resolve this so that I could submit an appeal online. There is no UKPC email address, only a contact form for business seeking information. When I called POPLA back to explain this I was told that you had an email address but couldn’t give it to me. I tried to call UKPC on the XXXX and the office was closed. I called on the XXXX and XXX and was left on hold waiting for an adviser for over 20 mins (see photo of call log) and then I was cut off. Having called POPLA back for a 3rd time & explained the situation I was advised to send an appeal direct to POPLA via mail (see email), hence the attached.



    I appeal 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

    4a. 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



    4b. Signage does not meet the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013


    5. Genuine Customer


    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.



    The inaccurate/incomplete address used by UKPC has meant that the right to appeal to POPLA within 28 days have not been granted. Despite best intentions to resolve this and provide the correct address UKPC were difficult to contact via phone, had no public email address and failed to ensure these rights were provided when contacted.

    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.''


    3. 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


    4a. Signage: does not meet the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. 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:

    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 & photo of actual car park sign

    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.

    See photos taken on a different day (enclosed) of numerous cars parking in the same place, all receiving PCN’s. Also note the location next to it with clear markings where no cars are parked. It is asserted that the signage and markings are inadequate and must be improved to prevent other innocent customers falling into this situation. I request that UKPC provide data to show how many PCN’s they have issued in this car park for the same reason during each of the past 5 years to substantiate that this is currently affecting many individuals who are unaware they cannot park in this area due to there being no markings indicating ‘no parking’ and the fact that this was previously allowed and therefore custom and practice has been changed with no communication / efforts to inform unsuspecting customers. Elsewhere in the same car park areas where parking is prohibited are routinely marked with red lines (shown with red lines).



    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 judgment 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.



    4b Signage does not meet the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.


    The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.


    The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant’s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:
    2(c) – Requirement to provide a geographical address. The Claimant’s address is given as a PO Box number.
    2(k) – Requirement to provide a complaint handling policy. This is not described on the signage.
    2(o) – Requirement to provide information about the right to cancel, or to state that there is no right to cancel. This is not stated on the signage.
    2(r) – Requirement to provide information about Codes of Conduct. This does not appear on the signage.
    2(x) – Requirement for access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. Not indicated by the signage.



    This was a free car park where a PCN was applied stating ‘not parked correctly outside of a bay or space’ and therefore this penalty is not about overstay monitored by ANPR and not concluded by means of automated vending machines/automated commercial premises.


    Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that I cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1)


    5. Genuine Customer


    As a genuine customer spending money in multiple shops within the retail shopping centre, parked in a position that has historically been used extensively for parking without any such penalties. Surely the reason a land owner employs a parking company is to stop non customers abusing the car park and not to deter genuine customers from using the site.

    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 and how the markings indicated parking was prohibited. 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.



      • Glad you like it!







    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jan 18, 11:33 PM
    • 52,923 Posts
    • 66,464 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:33 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:33 PM
    Did you even get a NTK though? Not the rejection letter.
    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.

    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 9th Jan 18, 11:43 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    • #7
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:43 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:43 PM
    No, I only got a rejection letter.


    Sorry, have I confused matters here - should I state NTK not received at all therefore non compliant with code?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jan 18, 11:47 PM
    • 52,923 Posts
    • 66,464 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:47 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:47 PM
    Of course, like all the other threads like it, this is the very reason for appealing on day 26 as keeper, and if you miss that winning point out of your POPLA appeal you've missed the point of what you did and why.

    There are 2 templates you still need from the NEWBIES thread post #3 - I challenge you to find them!

    It's nothing to do with not complying with a 'code'.
    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.

    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 9th Jan 18, 11:51 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    • #9
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:51 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:51 PM
    Oh my goodness, can see why some people give up (but I won't on principle!) I really thought I'd trawled the Newbies thread completely and couldn't find anything else similar to my case as it was a free car park and not related to overstaying.
    Will have another look - any clues welcomed
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jan 18, 11:53 PM
    • 52,923 Posts
    • 66,464 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    'Not the individual liable' and 'no NTK served' templates are right there in post #3 pf the sticky, and UKPC are the classic usual firm we catch out with the no NTK trick; they are clearly pretty dumb. The tactic was written with UKPC in mind!
    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.

    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 10th Jan 18, 12:08 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    Does this cover both points? (said hopefully)


    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Jan 18, 12:16 AM
    • 5,202 Posts
    • 3,664 Thanks
    KeithP
    You still need the 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 bit as well.
    .
    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 10th Jan 18, 12:28 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    Thank you Coupon-mad and KeithP - very grateful for your time/knowledge.
    I will find the last bit and update first thing tomorrow.
    Not sure I can repay the favour - but shout if I can do anything that helps the cause.
    • Tiny99
    • By Tiny99 10th Jan 18, 12:34 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Tiny99
    Just checked and looks as though the wording is included within point number 2?
    Or do I need something else?
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

4,920Posts Today

10,756Users online

Martin's Twitter