PoFA Specifics

ezerscrooge

I see some POPLA appeals are being allowed on specific elements of PoFA not being complied with...

So here's one for consideration - though I may be barking up the wrong tree

Paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Act states that a notice to keeper must:
“…(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates..”

The key point here is the ‘period of parking’. ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit to a car park do not, and cannot specify any period of parking. They can only register the presence of a vehicle at a particular point of time at the site i.e. the entrance/exit.

How could this be determined to be the ‘period of parking’, at best is can only be the period of presence on the site. Parking means stopped for a length of time in my book, there is clearly time elapsed from passing the cameras to parking, and similarly from un-parking to leaving site.

Would it be fair to state that time stamps do not specify the period of parking hence any Notice to Keeper where ANPR is used is not compliant with Paragraph 8(2) (a)?.

HO87

I would agree in that it is reasonable to conclude that the period of parking was probably only a few minutes short of the total time between the two shots.

However, if the maximum period of parking permitted on site was, say, 90 minutes and the time difference between the entrance and exit photo time-stamps was 250 minutes it would, by extension, be reasonable to conclude that the motoroist involved had not spent an hour driving around the car park without having parked - especially in the absence of evidence rebutting that presumption.

That said, POFA requires that the period of parking is specified and if it is not and a PCN shows only a "time of observation" (which is common) then it follows that POFA has not be complied with.

The exception to the above, I would personally accept, is in situations where it is alleged that a ticket has not been displayed/purchased or permit not displayed. Arguably the infraction occurs at the point the vehicle is parked (allowing for any "grace" period) rather than by exceeding a fixed period where common sense dictates that evidence must be adduced to prove that period was exceeded. That is not, of course, what POFA requires.

On APCOA PCN's particularly I have seen the place of parking shown as a three letter shorthand code. Clearly doesn't comply but then APCOA not longer seek to enforce keeper liability via POFA even if the PCN's continue to make ambiguous references to keeper liability.

On other PCN's (and NtK's) it is common for a bland statement such as "exceeded maximum time"; "ticket/permit not displayed" to be used which IMHO does not comply with POFA's requirement that charges be described. It is rare indeed for there to be any reference to breach of contract.

Appeals of this type are only relevant in cases where PPC's seek to invoke keeper liability as a consequence of their having fulfilled POFA.