POFA 2012 Para 8 (2(a)) period of parking

Stealthnet2004

Good evening Ladies and Gents,

Firstly apologies in advance if this specific topic has been discussed previously. I have searched and have not found anything that answered my question.

This is a question on definition of POFA 2012 paragraph 8 section 2 (A). For the purpose of the discussion, below is an excerpt of the above section of POFA I am talking about.

"Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the PERIOD of parking to which the notice relates"

Under the above the NTK must satisfy the above to comply with POFA 2012 (please correct if I am wrong).

Looking at my NTK it only states a specific time of the day e.g 11/02/15 12:49.

Now I am wondering if anyone can answer, whether; for a NTK to comply with POFA would the period of time that would need to be stated on the NTK have to be 12:49 - 12:50 for arguments sake, or is it enough to just have a specific time like stated above to comply with POFA?

I realise that this may be a question of definition of law, so firstly if this thread is in the wrong section someone please let me know. Secondly specifically if there are any lawyers lurking about here please stand up!

Many thanks to you all, Michael

kensiko

I wouldn't be concerned about the wording of the legislation for fighting these invoices personally. I believe people in the past on here have had lots of incorrect information shown!

There are so many easy arguments that can win the day for you so just follow the guides and letters in the stickys and you should be fine. Don't get hung up on trying to catch them out on tiny points.

Half_way

As above dont get ties up on one single point, theres many many many ways to kick the PPC into touch, take a read of the sticky thread for information.
Also while your at it make sure you have a good go at the land owner/car park owner or whoever it was that took on the PPC.
In most cases the parking company are only agents acting for and on behalf of the car park owner.
Its the car park owner (principal) thats responsible for the PPC (agent ) and should the PPC get up to any mischief the principal can be held to account

Stealthnet2004

Gentlemen/lady's

Many thanks for your reply's. I have been searching and reading over the last few days and have now sent the template first stage appeal to UKPC via there online appeal website (and received auto confirmation) as detailed and explained in the newbies sticky this evening.

With regards to the land owner, I am not entirely sure who the land owner is! I am assuming it was a private car park, maybe for employees. the signs in the car park were both obscurely placed 20 odd foot up a wall of a building and kind of ambiguous only stating that you needed a valid permit, and not where to get said permit. I returned to my car after reading the signs and determining that I needed a permit to park there to find that a "pcn" was already on the windscreen. So I have waited for the NTK and then appealed as the registered keeper and playing the not revealing the driver game.
The question in my first post is now purely out of interest and to try and gain another perspective / will to learn the ins and outs of these processes , so anyone who has any insight or anything to add, would be greatly appreciated.

lescm19

They couldn't even spell the address right on mine but it wasn't something to rely on at POPLA. They are so incompetent factual errors on the PCN are kinda accepted.

Fergie76

Stealthnet2004 wrote: »

Gentlemen/lady's

Many thanks for your reply's. I have been searching and reading over the last few days and have now sent the template first stage appeal to UKPC via there online appeal website (and received auto confirmation) as detailed and explained in the newbies sticky this evening.

With regards to the land owner, I am not entirely sure who the land owner is! I am assuming it was a private car park, maybe for employees. the signs in the car park were both obscurely placed 20 odd foot up a wall of a building and kind of ambiguous only stating that you needed a valid permit, and not where to get said permit. I returned to my car after reading the signs and determining that I needed a permit to park there to find that a "pcn" was already on the windscreen. So I have waited for the NTK and then appealed as the registered keeper and playing the not revealing the driver game.
The question in my first post is now purely out of interest and to try and gain another perspective / will to learn the ins and outs of these processes , so anyone who has any insight or anything to add, would be greatly appreciated.

If all you did was park, read the sign and decide not to park there, then complain to the BPA that UKPC (I think they are BPA members), that they are breaching the AOS Code of Practice:

13
Grace periods
13.1
Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2
You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action

HO87

#OP You raise an entirely fair point. If the "period of parking" is not specified then a NtK fails to comply and the PPC cannot therefore legally invoke the keeper liability provisions. In theory.

I don't think I have ever seen a NtK that complied with the letter of the law. That coupled with the fact that few PPC's seem able or willing to work within the apparently generous POFA timescales means that for all practical purposes POFA is something of a dead duck. PPC's are increasingly reverting to pre-POFA procedures.

So, four years ago, having gone whining and simpering to government claiming that unless they were granted keeper liability (in exchange for clamping which was to be outlawed) the country's car parks would descend into chaos PPC's were handed Schedule 4. Don't forget, this is something they actively sought out. Mindful that this was counter to established law Parliament built in a number of safeguards and conditions the PPC must fulfil to be able to use keeper liability. It was no surprise that there wasn't a single dissenting voice from the PPC side. Their gravy train had been secured. Or so they thought.

However, then came along those pesky forums and POPLA - who was supposed to be on their side weren't they? Suddenly, they were being obliged to toe the line; to play to the rules they had agreed to - indeed asked for. So rather than sharpen up their act they simply put POFA aside and decided they would play to the old rules - where there weren't actually any rules at all.

If ever you were to seek out evidence of the real nature and intentions of PPC's then this is it. IMO.

Stealthnet2004

Interesting information cheers for that!

I did a recce trip down to the car park today as I was near by (on foot this time ) and did a bit of digging with regards to who is the "principal" of the land. but in doing so I also took a few photos of the entrance and around the car park and also of a few "permits" that were in windscreens (latter maybe abit underhand but for info only). Key thing that was noticed was there was NO signs on entrance to the car park, only on walls in random places (about the size of an A3 piece of paper. Im sure that fails to comply with either BPA code of conduct or POFA (as always correct me if inaccurate).

Fruitcake

Stealthnet2004 wrote: »

Interesting information cheers for that!

I did a recce trip down to the car park today as I was near by (on foot this time ) and did a bit of digging with regards to who is the "principal" of the land. but in doing so I also took a few photos of the entrance and around the car park and also of a few "permits" that were in windscreens (latter maybe abit underhand but for info only). Key thing that was noticed was there was NO signs on entrance to the car park, only on walls in random places (about the size of an A3 piece of paper. Im sure that fails to comply with either BPA code of conduct or POFA (as always correct me if inaccurate).

You are correct. The signage is non-compliant and is one of several valid appeal winning points.

Stealthnet2004

Looks like this might not be a difficult case after all! ill keep you all updated if it gets unusual.

Marktheshark

We do not see 95% of What POPLA dish out as justice.
They know who will pull them up and who wont.