Windscreen pcn at ncp train station car park

mrtiggles

Apologies in advance if I've overlooked what I should be doing somewhere on this site but I'm a newbie to this. Brief circumstances are as follows:

The car was parked at a Suffolk train station car park owned/managed by NCP but due to a combination on late running caused by long term disability, associated impaired short-term impaired memory and phone battery dying on me despite full overnight charging, I couldn't pay for 1 day's parking by usual RingGo phone/text method and then totally forgot about calling to pay as above until on return train journey leg. I duly paid the same fee that would've been due had I paid on arrival at station but, on arrival back at car park, the dreaded PCN was on the windscreen, having been issued some 1 hr 20 mins before my RingGo payment call.

I now know in hindsight, having read several posts on here, that I shouldn't have called NCP or the train company to plead my case on grounds of my disability, impaired memory, phone battery probs and previous regular use of RingGo payment method, but I did so with good intentions...but alas such phone pleas, and my subsequent written appeal to NCP were all rejected (typical, from what I've read do far!) on grounds that no valid pay and display ticket was visible in the car, also NCP are adamant that their signage and PCNs fully comply both with industry standards and BPA's Code of Practice....but I would challenge this for the following reasons:

1. T&C signage is only displayed at car park entrance as you drive in from the main road, so not legible, and not displayed throughout the facilities as NCP claim to be the case. Furthermore, the sign at the car park entrance has no path leading to it from within the car park so one would either have to walk to it on the road or walk back out onto the main road path and retrace one's steps.

2. PCN charge is £75 which reduces to £50 if paid within 14 days...this is a 33.33% reduction, NOT the minimum 40% required by BPA's Code of Practice.

3. NCP's T&Cs maintain that the above charge fairly reflects a pre-estimate of loss to cover 'efficient management of the car park'. I would dispute this as this,sounds excessive to me.

4. NCP have suffered no financial loss as the amount paid for the parking was the correct amount applicable both for the time of parking the car and for the one day's duration...not, for example, amount paid was during off peak period but parking arrival time was off peak. Both times were off-peak using their time period definitions.

A POPLA code has been included in the appeal rejection e-mail from NCP....but I'd be very grateful for advice on how to proceed from this moment.

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

You covered quite a few points so I have written them into a basic draft POPLA appeal for you but you can add more if you can spot more flaws with the PCN.

Does yours look like this one from March?

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9307/pccnleftoncarpage1redac.jpg

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/pccnleftoncarpage2.jpg/

So does it only give 14 days to appeal, on the back? Or is yours different?



Here's a draft to work with, so you can add more if your ticket isn't compliant, as it has to have the right info about 28 days to appeal:



Dear POPLA
NCP verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the driver as already admitted, however I deny that I am liable for this parking charge. The vehicle was not improperly parked and the amount of this charge exceeds any appropriate amount. The appeal points are:

1. Unclear signage which is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
2. The PCCN breaches the BPA Code of Practice
3. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. NCP are not the landowner and so have no status to form contracts or allege loss.
5. NCP have breached the Equality Act 2010 in pursuing this charge (disability discrimination; failure to make a reasonable adjustment).


1. Full terms & conditions signage is not displayed throughout the car park, as NCP claimed to be the case. I contend that this breaches the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. Furthermore, whilst there is one sign at the car park entrance, it breaches Appendix B 'mandatory entrance signs' in that it cannot be read from a driver's seat when turning into the car park entrance. It also has no path leading to it from within the car park and to read & understand the terms, a driver would have to specifically double back and walk to it on the road. It would not be reasonable to expect a driver to go back to read an unclear sign in the other direction, when they are there to catch a train. Multiple signs must be in prominent view around a car park to be BPA Compliant. In this instance, a clear sign should be placed where a driver is walking towards the station platform entrance - or lower down in plain view at driver's height on arrival - if NCP are to claim that the elements of a contract have been fulfilled. Whilst I was aware from the station website and previous journeys, that payment for parking could be made by RingGo, I have not read and understood any other terms under which I would ever have agreed to pay this PCCN 'charge'.

2. NCP has breached the BPA Code of Practice on the PCCN. The charge is £75 which reduces to £50 if paid within 14 days, which is a 33.33% reduction, NOT the minimum 40% required by BPA's CoP.

3. NCP's PCCN makes it clear that the charge is levied for 'breach of terms' and as such, it must represent in its entirety, a genuine pre-estimate of loss directly flowing from the parking event. However, NCP maintain that the above charge covers 'efficient management of the car park' which includes business running costs. In fact, NCP have suffered no financial loss as the amount paid for the parking (albeit later than normal, see point 6 for my lawful reason for this) was the correct amount applicable for the one day's duration at off-peak rates, using their time period definitions. Given there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss shown by NCP, the charge levied is unenforceable and should be cancelled. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event, so this charge breaches the code.

4. NCP are not the landowner and so have no standing to form contracts with drivers on site, nor allege loss. Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow NCP to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require NCP to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and without it, NCP have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could in any way impact on visiting drivers. Indeed, I believe that this car park is covered by bylaws which would only allow the TOC (Train Operating Company) themselves to issue a 'penalty' - and this PCCN is not a properly issued 'penalty under bylaws' by any stretch of the imagination, so it has no legal status and is an invalid, unenforceable charge here.

5. NCP declined to comment or respond to my point, made by telephone at first to them and to their client the TOC, and then followed up in writing, that I am a disabled driver by virtue of my 'protected characteristics'. I explained to both principal and agent that a particular feature of my long-term disability is impaired short-term memory. This is why, when on the train and finding myself unable to pay by RingGo straight away on this occasion, due to a phone battery problem, it was not until my return journey when I remembered the car park and payment needing to be made. I duly paid the charge before I completed my return journey. This is not mitigating circumstances, this is an example of NCP and the TOC failing to make a 'reasonable adjustment' after I had explained the delay was actually caused by my memory impairment. This Operator knows about the relevant 'protected characteristics' of my disability and yet have continued to pursue this charge, so they are in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment and failure to make a reasonable adjustment when the issue was raised by a disabled service user).

My view is supported by a compelling court decision recently in Excel Parking Services v Greenwood, case number 3QT60496 4/10/13 where the motorist forgot to display his permit due to his short term memory impairment which, like me, was a feature of his long term disability. Despite POPLA unfortunately missing the valid point about his disability and not paying due regard to their own legal duty as a service provider under the Equality Act - as his POPLA appeal was refused - when Excel tried to enforce their charge against Mr Greenwood, they failed. The District Judge found that the parking operator 'should have made a reasonable adjustment' which should simply have resulted in cancelling the charge as soon as they knew that the forgotten permit was caused by the 'protected characteristics' (impaired memory) of the driver.

The Equality Act states that any contractual terms are specifically rendered 'unenforceable' if they have the effect of causing detrimental treatment of a disabled person.
''142Unenforceable terms
(1)A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.''

A service provider which refuses to make a 'reasonable adjustment' without lawful justification is in breach of their mandatory duties under the following statutory Code:

The EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers (became law in April 2011):
''14.58 Indirect discrimination will be intentional where the defendant (or defender) knew that certain consequences would follow from their actions and they wanted those consequences to follow. A motive, for example, of promoting business efficiency, does not mean that the act of indirect discrimination is unintentional.
5.34 In a case involving disability if the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for the service provider to show that the treatment was proportionate.''

I would remind the POPLA assessor that POPLA is also a 'service provider' to the public and has broadly the same duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the Operator and TOC. The Chief Adjudicator will no doubt be familiar with these regulations and I am sure that all employees, including all POPLA assessors, are trained in this law and know that they must demonstrate compliance when making decisions which affect disabled groups or individuals.

I respectfully suggest that it would be discrimination by POPLA if they do not uphold this appeal, in view of my 'genuine disability/no reasonable adjustment made' easily- remedied situation. The Assessor in this case, having read all the facts, is now acting in the full knowledge of my protected characteristics and knowing there is a complete absence of lawful justification for the refusal to make a 'reasonable adjustment'. POPLA, as a service provider, are aware of the disproportionate consequences that will cause further detriment, harassment and potential monetary loss for me, if you decide I should pay this charge. I hope to hear from POPLA soon that my appeal has been upheld.

yours

mrtiggles

Hi Coupon-mad

Many thanks for a truly fab and comprehensive reply and draft for my POPLA appeal.

Re my PCCN, the exact wording on the reverse of it reads "HOW TO APPEAL.....Appeals must reach us no later than 14 days from the date of this notice...Appeals will be reviewed in line with our terms and conditions". Should I ask them to provide me with a copy of these T&Cs?

As you see, although not identical to the one you cited in your reply, the wording is very similar and, perhaps most importantly, they only give you 14 days to appeal rather than BPA's CoP requiring 28 days.

Does it matter, though, that I've already appealed to NCP as previously advised in my original post but felt obliged to do so no later than 14 days instead of the 28 days they should have given me...thus having significantly less time to draw up said appeal?

I've double-checked re ownership of this car park...according to the TOC's website it is the TOC who OWN the car park, NCP only MANAGE it.

Thanks again for your invaluable assistance.

Coupon-mad

So, you can change point 2 as follows:



2. NCP has breached the BPA Code of Practice on the PCCN. The charge is £75 which reduces to £50 if paid within 14 days, which is a 33.33% reduction, NOT the minimum 40% required by BPA's CoP. Further, on the back of the PCCN under 'appeals' they only gave me 14 days to appeal rather than BPA's CoP requiring 28 days. This is a breach which has prejudiced my chances of formulating an initial appeal in good time, especially in view of my memory impairment which I had explained about on the phone (and no extra time to appeal was given). This appeals procedure misinformation means that the PCCN fails to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 as regards a Notice to Driver, so the Notice to Driver was never properly given.

mrtiggles

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So, you can change point 2 as follows:



2. NCP has breached the BPA Code of Practice on the PCCN. The charge is £75 which reduces to £50 if paid within 14 days, which is a 33.33% reduction, NOT the minimum 40% required by BPA's CoP. Further, on the back of the PCCN under 'appeals' they only gave me 14 days to appeal rather than BPA's CoP requiring 28 days. This is a breach which has prejudiced my chances of formulating an initial appeal in good time, especially in view of my memory impairment which I had explained about on the phone (and no extra time to appeal was given). This appeals procedure misinformation means that the PCCN fails to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 as regards a Notice to Driver, so the Notice to Driver was never properly given.

Many thanks again Coupon-mad...much appreciated. I'll get on to submitting this POPLA appeal later today. Do you happen to know how soon....or long....I'm likely to have to wait for their response please?

Also, the POPLA website FAQs state that any documents or photographs relevant to the appeal should be lodged at the time. Is it therefore for me to prove the erroneous wording of the PCCN and non-existence of the full T&C signage throughout the car park (it only has 23 parking spaces so is quite small) by means of the original notice itself and photos, or for NCP to prove otherwise?

Coupon-mad

Relax, it's for NCP to try to prove otherwise to all your assertions.

And POPLA seem to be taking around 6 weeks at the moment but due to Christmas closure (bound to be!) I expect it may be early January.

mrtiggles

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Relax, it's for NCP to try to prove otherwise to all your assertions.

And POPLA seem to be taking around 6 weeks at the moment but due to Christmas closure (bound to be!) I expect it may be early January.

Hi Forum Friends!

Despite being laid up with an awful chest infection, I just thought that I'd share my success story with you re this matter.

I received an e-mail from POPLA's Service Manager on 23 January advising me that the Lead Adjudicator has ordered that my appeal be allowed on the grounds that the Operator, NCP, have decided to cancel the PCCN....but that no reason has been given by either POPLA or NCP as exactly why the notice has been cancelled.

I have e-mailed POPLA to ask for an explanation. Whilst I can fully appreciate that most folk would simply accept the positive outcome, I'd be interested to know how NCP reached their decision, especially as they refused my first appeal when I appealed directly to them...maybe they don't wish to reveal this for fear of setting a precedent?

I was expecting to get a full appeal report from the Adjudicator, similar to those that have previously been posted on here.

I'll keep you all updated....but now back to my pesky chest infection.

Coupon-mad

They bailed out as they were going to lose! There has been a lot of throwing in the towel in the last couple of weeks by PPCs at this stage when faced with a decent POPLA appeal.

mrtiggles

Oh dear....seems NCP haven't got their act together yet again in my situation..

As mentioned above, I contacted POPLA asking for a copy of NCP's full explanation for cancelling my PCCN. They advised me that NCP had not given them specific reasons for having done so, therefore I should contact NCP directly...which I did using their Customer Relations e-mail address. They replied asking for details of the PCCN number and vehicle index number as they could not identify my case from the POPLA reference number.

I duly responded with the requested detail......and what then happened next??.....

I receive a letter from NCP in the post today thanking me for my recent correspondence.....but, instead of answering my query about the full explanation for them cancelling the PCCN, they're now telling me how payment can be made for the original PCCN amount and that, if this is not paid within 14 days of the date of this letter, the discount offer will expire and the full amount of £75 will be due....followed effectively by threats of passing the matter to a debt collection agency and / or court action if not resolved.

So much for the PCCN being cancelled at POPLA Appeal stage then....

Maybe I should now start charging NCP for MY time in dealing with this!

Sounds like further harassment of me on their part, particularly considering my previous citing of the Equality Act in respect of my disability.

Any thoughts please Coupon Mad...et al?

Stroma

So it's gone to popla and they have upheld your appeal as ncp hadn't given anything to counter your appeal. Now they are demanding you pay despite the popla win. Next step is complaints to the dvla and bpa as ncp are acting in breach of the bpa code of practice

Coupon-mad

Use the email addies in the NEWBIES sticky thread (Steve Clark and David Dunford).