27 days between incident and notice

Umkomaas

Stroma wrote: »

Despite the grandiose name, they are just a two bit scummy parking company who are trying to scam you. Just follow the advice given

And this is their scummy website.

http://www.parkingpatrol.co.uk/

Former clampers or former Boy Scouts? I see their clients include Cooperative Funeral Care And Litchfield Cahedral. Wouldn't want to attend a funeral there :A.

And especially if the wake was at Harry Ramsden's afterwards - cos they're one of their customers too :rotfl:

Umkomaas

More interrogation of their website brings up all this crud. !!!!!!?

Lawful Issue

Our system is based on contract law. By parking and ignoring the warning signs, the motorist has entered into a contract to pay a parking charge. We operate our collections under the Administration of Justice Act 1970.
DVLA Code of practice for private parking enforcement

The DVLA have created a code of conduct to ensure lawful, ethical and fair business practice to which we adhere and are able to obtain vehicle-licensing details from them to enforce any parking charges that remain unpaid. The full PDF file of this Code of Practise can be found from the DVLA website here. (You will need the Adobe Acrobat reader to view PDF files. It is available free of charge from the Adobe website here.)
Protection of Data
After we have extracted the offenders’ details from the DVLA, we cannot disclose these, as we cannot disclose the site owners’ details to offenders. This is under the Data Protection Act 1988.

Payments
The Parking Charge is a standardised £60. This is in order with the current council Penalty Charges throughout England and Wales. If a charge is not paid within 14 days the charge will increase to £90. If payment is not received within a further 14 days the charge becomes £120 and legal proceedings to retrieve the monies commence.

Appeals from Offenders
Each motorist that receives a parking charge ticket will find clear instructions of how to appeal. The reasons for appeal are clearly stated, however compassion is granted as a sufficient reason, but is not listed in the terms of appeal.

Cancellations
The ethical policies we employ within our organisation mean that once a parking charge has been issued, the land owner/ manager has 21 days in which to cancel the ticket. This is to allow any offenders who receive a ticket in error to appeal and then subsequently relay the appeal to YOU for a decision.

Compensatory Payments
Only available with the Problem Park System NOT Patrols.
Each paid Parking Charge Ticket issued by YOU will result in a compensatory payment of £10 back to you. This is to cover any resource costs incurred and aim towards providing you with a solution that is paid for by the offenders and not by YOU the sufferer.

moosty_moo

Hi all,

I wonder if someone would mind commenting on my first draft POPLA appeal? I've kept it simple, so it's short. Is that a mistake?

Here it is:


Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXX
PPC: UK Parking Patrol Office
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Aug-2013
Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013

On XX Sep 2013 I was sent an invoice from UK Parking Patrol Office requiring payment of a £100 charge for the alleged contravention of “Dropping Off/ Picking Up In A Restricted Area”.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1) Failure to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
2)Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

1) Failure to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The operator has clearly failed to adhere to the lawful time period for delivery of the notice. The operator delivered the notice to keeper 29 days after the alleged contravention.
The date of the alleged contravention is XX-Aug-2013 and the date of the notice is XX-Sep-2013 ( 27 days). The envelope is also postmark dated XX.09.13. According to sub-section (6) ,of the act cited below, the notice is deemed to be delivered 2 days later. This makes 29 days between the alleged contravention and delivery of the notice.
This falls well outside of the 14 day time limit specified below:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is absolutely specific about the time scale that the operator MUST follow when issuing a notice to keeper. I refer you to the relevant section:

9 (4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

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

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

The company issued a notice to keeper, knowingly, in breach of POFA 2012, failing to adhere to the lawful notification time period and I am not, therefore, obliged to name the driver or, as keeper, accept the charge.

2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable

I require UK Parking Patrol Office to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.

I, therefore, submit that my appeal by upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours Sincerely,
XXXXXXXX

Coupon-mad

''and I am not, therefore, obliged to name the driver or, as keeper, accept the charge.''

should be I think:

''and I am not, therefore, obliged to name the driver and nor am I legally liable at all for the charge.''


- And I would add in stuff about their ANPR cameras (see other POPLA appeals)

- and the usual winner demanding that they produce their contract with the landowner (see other POPLA appeals)

- and signage not being prominent enough for drivers in moving traffic to be fully advised beyond doubt that this is an alleged no-stopping zone. Double yellow lines do NOT have that meaning and in fact Council DYL actually allow dropping off and picking up passengers, so to copy those lines then claim they mean something else is unfair and misleading.

- and add in stuff about Airport land not being 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012 and as such there is no 'registered keeper liability' blah blah about bylaws, as in this letter (not a POPLA appeal but has the Airport land/bylaws point):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62859837#Comment_62859837

...if it isn't 'relevant land' then there isn't any rk liability. At all. And it's not for you to prove that it isn't relevant land, it's for you to say and then the burden shifts to them to prove otherwise!


HTH

moosty_moo

Hi Coupon-Mad,

Many thanks for that.
So, you don't think that point 1) is a killer by itself?
I'm busy doing draft 2 with the points that you mentioned.

Thanks again.

Regards.

Coupon-mad

moosty_moo wrote: »

Hi Coupon-Mad,

Many thanks for that.
So, you don't think that point 1) is a killer by itself?
I'm busy doing draft 2 with the points that you mentioned.

Thanks again.

Regards.

I do, yes, but I would never assume that a POPLA adjudicator will find on just one killer point. I think give them plenty of choice of points to uphold the appeal on!

Umkomaas

I think the one-line, single point appeal needs to be left for the experienced, well versed and extremely determined (and prepared to take it through the full legal process if necessary) like Parking Prankster.

For everyone else, as many relevant POPLA points as possible. Blunderbuss, yes, but leave the keyhole precision work to the surgeons on here

moosty_moo

[FONT=&quot]Hi all,[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]I wonder if someone would be so kind as to comment on mt POPLA appeal below?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Adjudicator,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]RE: POPLA code XXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Vehicle Registration: XXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PPC: UK Parking Patrol Office[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN ref: XXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alleged Contravention Date: XX-Aug-2013[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of notice: XX-Sep-2013[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On XX Sep 2013 I was sent an invoice from UK Parking Patrol Office requiring payment of a £100 charge for the alleged contravention of “Dropping Off/ Picking Up In A Restricted Area”. The vehicle was stopped, for less than a minute, to allow a passenger to alight on the airport approach road.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Failure to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Not relevant land for registered keeper liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Signage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7) [/FONT]N[FONT=&quot]o Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) Failure to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator has clearly failed to adhere to the lawful time period for delivery of the notice. The operator delivered the notice to keeper 29 days after the alleged contravention. No Notice to Driver was issued.[/FONT]
The date of the alleged contravention is XX-Aug-2013 and the date of the notice is XX-Sep-2013 ( 27 days). The envelope is also postmark dated XX.09.13. According to sub-section (6) ,of the act cited below, the notice is deemed to be delivered 2 days later. This makes 29 days between the alleged contravention and delivery of the notice.
This falls well outside of the 14 day time limit specified below:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is absolutely specific about the time scale that the operator MUST follow when issuing a notice to keeper. I refer you to the relevant section:
9 (4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

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

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
The Operator issued a Notice to Keeper, knowingly, in breach of POFA 2012, failing to adhere to the lawful notification time period and I am not, therefore, obliged to name the driver and nor am I legally liable, at all, for the charge.

[FONT=&quot]2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty[/FONT].
[FONT=&quot]The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable

I require UK Parking Patrol Office to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at[/FONT]. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
[FONT=&quot]I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]3) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I contend that this is not 'private land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability. It's an Airport road and this Airport is known to have Byelaws and the right to 'registered keeper liability' is simply not available on land covered by local Bylaws. Railway or Airport land is generally not 'relevant land' under the definition within the POFA. The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that this particular Airport Road is not covered by Statute or Byelaw and is 'relevant land' (as defined in Schedule 4 paragraph 3) because I believe it is not 'relevant land' at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4) No authority to levy charges.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue charge notices at this location[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles the Operator to levy these charges and to pursue these 'charges' in their own name as creditor in the courts and, therefore, has no authority to issue charge notices.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Operator.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5) Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is not a parking issue, but a stopping/dropping off passenger issue. Therefore POFA 2012 does not apply, which means Registered Keeper liability does not apply[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I 1) This was not a parking incident as defined by the POFA 2012 which states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and ...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) Therefore, keeper liability does not apply
3) The operator may only pursue the driver
4) The operator has offered no proof as to the identity of the driver[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) The operator should not have requested the keeper details from DVLA.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6) Signage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prominent, clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a no Dropping Off/ Picking up zone, bearing in mind that this is an area of moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The signs in this area do not comply with the regulations set out in the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The driver puts it to the Operator to demonstrate how their signage meets the BPA's regulations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After visiting the site and taking photos of a sign, I can see a section of small print that states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“This land is private property and the parking is enforced by UK Parking Patrol Office.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I contend that even if the sign could be read from a moving vehicle, which it can not, no contract could be entered in to as this is a matter of “Dropping Off/ Picking up” and not one of parking.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As there was no contract entered in to I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]


7) [FONT=&quot]No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Failing to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be, is misleading and not compliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to be made to UKPP, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be UKPP or some other party. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and the Notice does not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I, therefore, respectfully submit that my appeal by upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours Sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX[/FONT]

Guys_Dad

It would be a bonus if POPLA upheld the appeal on point 1. Not actually seen POPLA do that before.

In fact, if you could finish that section along the following lines with the bit in bold added.

"(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
The Operator issued a Notice to Keeper, knowingly, in breach of POFA 2012, failing to adhere to the lawful notification time period and I am not, therefore, obliged to name the driver and nor am I legally liable, at all, for the charge.

As the Notice to Keeper fell outside the strict time requirements of POFA 2012, I would ask that you dismiss the charge on this point of law as I, as the keeper of the vehicle can not be pursued on this matter for the reason given.

However, only if POPLA are not prepared to accept this point, I would submit the following as my appeal...." Then section 2 onwards.

Please make sure you enclose a copy of the NtK.

moosty_moo

Thanks Guys-dad,

I've put that change in.
It's going to be great to give this PPC a big parking black eye :rotfl:

If I win the appeal I'm going to donate £30 to Marie Curie on behalf of everyone that's helped.

Do you guys, and gals have a collective name?
I'm sure that the PPC's will have one for you :rotfl:

Regards.