PCN received in post after 56 days

bod1467

You need an urgent complaint to Armtrac, POPLA and BPA that the PPC actions have not given you reasonable time to appeal. Get that complaint in today.

Coupon-mad

Raybelline wrote: »

I really want to win this!

I want to appeal on the grounds that there was no initial loss as the driver did pay for the ticket. Can I also throw in the Armtrac's obstructive tactics in this appeal process?

Yes absolutely start the appeal by saying what Armtrac have done!

In fact you COULD even register a brief summary appeal/complaint combined, to POPLA online today which says (for now):

'I want to appeal on the grounds that there was no initial loss as the driver did pay for the ticket, and no GPEOL, no standing and no keeper liability because the NTK was non-compliant in wording and was received 82 days after the parking event.

However, what is worse is that Armtrac have only given me ONE DAY to appeal to POPLA (I only have today). I received a rejection letter from Armtrac dated 1 November; I have checked the POPLA verification code and it is also dated 1 November. However, the letter was posted 2nd class and the Royal Mail Cornwall Mail Centre postal stamp on the envelope is dated 25/11/14. This is sharp practice in the extreme and I request that POPLA now allows me 28 days to submit my full appeal argument, please confirm by email that this is acceptable and if you require to see the envelope with the franking date from Armtrac.




Then also send a really similar complaint to Steve Clark at the BPA and copy in Gemma Ridgewell who is the BPA's POPLA Liaison Officer. Ask them to ensure POPLA extend your time limit.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

gemma.r@britishparking.co.uk


HTH

Raybelline

Brilliant - thank you!
Especially Coupon Mad. I've literally just hit send on the email to POPLA explaining what Armtrac have done, stating for the record that I want to complain about their actions, and requesting 25 days from 27 Nov to respond. I will email Steve and Gemma today as well as you suggest. Thank you very, very much!

Coupon-mad

Don't forget this isn't just an email to POPLA - submit it as your appeal on the appeals page and submit, then you KNOW your basis for appeal is logged in time.

Raybelline

Got it. Thanks!

Raybelline

I've managed to put this appeal together. If anyone can review it and give me feedback I would appreciate it.

[FONT=&quot]To whom it may concern,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I appeal against the parking charge notice issued by Armtrac Security Services, “Armtrac”, on the following grounds:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1) There is no keeper liability because the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was received 76 days after the parking event. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The NTK issued by Armtrac was dated 17th September 2014 and was received on 22 September. The parking event was documented by Armtrac as 6 July 2014. Therefore the NTK was received by the keeper 76 days after the parking event which is in contravention of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the notice should be received no later than 56 days after the date of the parking event.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On rejection of my initial appeal Armtrac admit the delay in the issuance of the NTK: “Please see below the reason for our delay in correspondence to you”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 21.6 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice states: “To give drivers early notice of your claim, you should apply to the DVLA for the keeper details promptly. Usually this would be applying to the DVLA no more than 28 days after the unauthorised parking event. In their letter to me Armtrac state: “... it was after day 29 (from the day the PCN was issued to the driver) that we requested the registered keeper details from them (the DVLA)”. This is in direct contravention of the code.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) There is no keeper liability because the NTK was non-compliant in wording.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the NTK, the 'period of parking' is not shown, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. Also the NTK completely misinforms the rights of a registered keeper to appeal, alleging that “the DRIVER was required to pay the amount due under this notice... and the opportunity to pay a discounted amount has been lost”. The appeal time for the keeper had indeed not lapsed and this statement wrongly restricts my options as the keeper at that stage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore this wording is non-compliant under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4 paragraph 8:”(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper…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;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](g) inform the keeperof any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]3) The parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Armtrac cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss because the driver paid for the parking ticket.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office function costs, debt collection expenses, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. Armtrac would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, which states:
“18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]4) Armtrac has failed to adequately identify the creditor to whom the parking charge is due as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act stating in their letter to me that “we feel that having our Warning Signs sited on their land should be sufficient evidence for the motorist”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]5) Armtrac does not have authority to contract with me at the site in question as I require proof of ownership of the land or any contract from the land owner providing such authority. In my initial appeal I specifically requested evidence of their proprietary interest, but Armtrac has not produced such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. Instead they have merely stated: “we feel that having our Warning Signs sited on their land should be sufficient evidence for the motorist”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I require Armtrac to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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 Armtrac 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. Armtrac has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]6) I would also like it specifically noted that Armtrac has not conducted itself in line with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice with regards to following the POPLA process. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 22.16a of the code states: “You must keep to the processes and other requirements of POPLA, as set out on their website and elsewhere”. POPLA states “If your representations are refused, the person to whom that rejection is sent then has 28 days to:[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]pay the parking charge; or[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]appeal to Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I received a rejection letter from Armtrac dated 1 November; and the POPLA verification code is also dated 1 November. However, the letter was posted Second Class and the Royal Mail Cornwall Mail Centre postal stamp on the envelope is dated 25/11/14. By doing this Armtrac have only given me ONE DAY to appeal to POPLA. This is sharp practice and is in contravention of the Code.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am happy to provide POPLA or the BPA with the envelope with the franking date from Armtrac.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In conclusion, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and that the charge is dismissed.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

You didn't need to do all that for today, I said just do the short version in the appeals box - to get an appeal lodged today - which I assume you did. The BPA complaint will give you time to appeal in more detail, you will get 28 days I expect, if you don't allow Gemma R to fob you off. As long as you have bunged the words we discussed earlier into the POPLA appeals page you are in on time and can add more later. You've sent the email to Steve & Gemma at the BPA we assume?

Sheri_Winter_Berry

I have also received a notice from Armtrac dated the 5th of November and posted on the 28th November 2nd class. I received it today so I also have only 1 full day to appeal. How many other people out there has Armtrac tried to stop them appealing by not sending the letter until its too late. They waited 59 days to send it!

Coupon-mad

Send the appeal online or by email if you can - and a complaint email to the BPA showing them the letter and the franked envelope and complaining about this sharp practice. You need your POPLA code and then you can consult the NEWBIES thread at the top of this forum and see 'How to win at POPLA'.

AFAIK Armtrac are still in the BPA (although I have seen posts saying not).

Sheri_Winter_Berry

Hello and thanks again for your time. I have written to POPLA after reading lots of advice. As you know I am out of time tomorrow. I have asked Armtrac to generate another POPLA number but they have not responded. Thank you.


I would first like to ask for more time from POPLA as ARMTRAC did not send me rejection notice and my POPLA number until yesterday. The envelope was clearly franked 28/11/2014, they posted this second-class and this was delivered 01/12/2014. (59 days after my original appeal email) (see evidence envelope and letter) They dated the letter 05/11/2014 but failed to post this in the allowed time. This is a common practice by Armtrac to make sure people that appeal are out of time. Should you not allow me more time here is a short version of my appeal. I thank you in anticipation of the extra 28 days.



I refer to the notice sent to me by Armtrac which I challenge, not as driver but as keeper of the car, on the following grounds:

a). The sum sought does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss
and yet it is intended as a deterrent, so the charge is a penalty.
b). The signage on site is deficient, the wording unclear and it fails to comply with the Code of Practice. The original signage has now been removed and replaced since my appeal to Armtrac yet they are still pursuing me. (please see evidence)
c). In the absence of any evidence it is my case that they lack any or sufficient proprietary interest in the land.
d). There notice was deficient and fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. (see evidence)
e) The land the car was parked on was private and owned by the residents of the Vean in Truro I was visiting my parents on that day, they live in a house on the Vean. I used my Dads permit (as he was at work) and laid this on the dashboard in its plastic case on the passenger side. Mysteriously (the window was open please see photo evidence) the permit was on the floor! I parked the car at 9.30am to collect my Mum at 10am there was a ticket on the car.
The parking incident was on 23/09/2014 and the notice to keeper was received on 01/12/2014 This is outside the POFA 2012 requirements for service of the notice to keeper (14 days) and therefore keeper liability does not apply.
The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.