Parking notice from NGP

Coupon-mad

Reply to POPLA and add the words in blue in the Newbies thread post #3 (to get the case stayed pending Beavis in July) and reiterate that you have not had the evidence pack. The pressure will then be off and you will have until August at least, to get that evidence pack and rebut it (unless POPLA finds in your favour shortly on another appeal point - such as 'no landowner authority' if you argued that). Basically you make sure you either win or get the case stayed, by using the words I added to post #3 of the newbies thread yesterday.

misterbarlow

Thanks guys..
I'll get on it and email BPA and POPLA again later then..

I argued....
invalid NTK
No GPEOL
confusing, misleading and contradictory signage
no standing authority
unfair terms

misterbarlow

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Hard to say how close to the assessment date the assessment will actually be done but POPLA are often 1 - 2 weeks late.

Email a complaint to Steve Clarke at the BPA Ltd about NGP's failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practise

22.16c It is a clear requirement of POPLA that evidence packs
are sent to the appellant at the same time as they are
sent to POPLA. Failure to do this will be considered a
Sanctionable Breach of the Code.

and ask what sanctions will be imposed on NGP for this flagrant breach of process.

Email addy for S Clarke will be found in post #6 of NEWBIES.

Also email POPLA to record the fact that despite you having to request the information that should have been provided in accordance with POPLA's requirements and the BPA CoP - the operator has still failed to provide you with a copy and ask for your appeal to be upheld as you have been given no right to reply because the evidence has not been received both by the appellant and POPLA within the deadline.

Reply back from Steve Clark...

Thanks for your e-mail, the contents of which are noted

I am sorry to hear that you have had a problem with NGP during a POPLA appeal and I believe that this is something that we should look into for you.

By copy I am asking my colleague to investigate this matter and she will revert once a conclusion has been reached.

In response to your last point, if we do decide to award Sanction Points on a case, we will not be able to give you the details as Association procedures preclude us from doing so – I hope that you appreciate our position in this regard.

Once again thanks for writing.

So does that mean in other words, no sanctions???

misterbarlow

Finally had the evidence pack today, the day after I emailed BPA complaining funnily enough!!
No wonder they never bothered though, basically all that's in it are...

their photos of the car,
the NTK,
my appeal letter,
their rejection and 'alleged' GPEOL,
and a witness statement for 'alleged' standing authority from Landowner with a map with a blue zone marked on it.

Cant see any of that beating my appeal letter tbh!!!!

I have noticed that there are areas of the map outside the blue zone on it, that have NGP signs on the walls on site, so they are posting signs in areas they themselves are stating they do not cover...
Thats the only thing worth highlighting to POPLA I think!!!

misterbarlow

I hadn't posted my POPLA appeal as thought would wait until it was a winner, thought no point posting a losing appeal..
but as per my new post
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5284078
my PCN has been cancelled by the operator, presumable due to multiple complaints to the BPA..

So might as well post it anyway now as i'll never know if it was a winner or not, but something in there might help someone else when writing theirs...
It is long and detailed but I am like that with letters..

I am the keeper of vehicle reg xxxxxx.
On 11/04/15 I received by mail a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper from New Generation Parking (NGP) alleging a parking offence on 31/03/15, at Curran Rd Ind Est CF10 5NB, and demanding a charge.
My appeal to the operator NGP was rejected on 20/04/15. I have visited the site since the alleged offence to gather information and photographs, and I contend that as keeper I am not liable for the alleged parking charge for the following reasons.

1. A non compliant, and erroneous notice to keeper
2. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty.
3. The signage on site is inadequate, its placement is confusing & contradictory, and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed
4. A lack of standing or authority from the landowner.
5. Unreasonable and unfair terms

1) Non compliant and erroneous Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA 2012.

As the keeper, I have not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle.
As the keeper of the vehicle, I can only be held liable for the parking charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied. The Notice to Keeper from NGP, dated 02/04/2015 fails to comply with POFA2012 Schedule 4.

It fails to comply with Para 9(2)(a) of the Act, on two counts. Para 9(2)(a) states that a notice must: “…specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates”
(1) Firstly, and most importantly, the notice to keeper allegedly states the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked as “Curran Rd Ind Est, CF10 5NB”. This purely and simply is totally incorrect! The vehicle in question was not, and has never at any time, EVER, been parked on Curran Rd Ind estate, CF10 5NB. I challenge NGP to prove without doubt that the vehicle was ever seen on Curran Rd Ind Est at any time, EVER. The photographs they have kindly supplied aid my point, and were taken on CURRAN EMBANKMENT, CF10 5DX. This location was also confirmed by speaking to the driver at the time!
How can they demand any charges, when the vehicle was never even parked where they are claiming in the first place?
(2) Secondly, the notice to keeper issued does not specify a period of parking, merely the time of the alleged contravention and charge issue. This alone does not constitute proof of parking.

2) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor proportionate or commercially justifiable. It is a disguised penalty!

This operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of losses that arose directly from the alleged infringement, and not a penalty.
Having since visited the (correct) site and examined its location and the signage, it is clear to myself due to its close proximity to the city centre, that both the landowner and NGP want the notices to be prohibitive in nature to prevent all parking, and any alleged losses NGP claim, are merely a disguised penalty!
NGP’s rejection letter to me states…
2.1.1 “Our business model is based on receiving small fees from members of the public using our car parks in return for a service, such as a fee paid at a pay and display machine, or the price paid for a parking permit.”
2.1.4 “In turn, there would be a real danger that this business model would break down and our clients revenue stream would be damaged”
2.2.1 “Our parking charge notices represent liquidated and ascertained damages. The measure of their damages is the loss of its revenue (for example the pay and display ticket not paid for) plus the cost of recovering that sum.”

However, I argue that on this occasion there is NO REVENUE STREAM and thus NO LOSS!
The land in question is NOT a car park of any description, whether pay and display, or otherwise! It is a standard access roadway onto an commercial area, whose sole and only purpose, is for the vehicular access to the various commercial properties that lie thereon.
There is NO regular revenue stream generated from the parking of vehicles on this land to NGP or any other party at any time, ie there is no pay and display system etc in place, it is purely just an access road.

So therefore how can any initial loss be alleged?
The only revenue stream here comes directly from vehicles being issued with a PCN.
In fact the NGP signs found on site, stipulate that vehicles parked with permission of NGP can park FOR FREE!
So if said vehicles parked with permission incur NGP NO LOSSES, why do those parked without permission suddenly incur them such huge losses? What difference does simply not having ‘permission’ make to incurring losses?
NGPs (alleged) losses are actually self generating in nature, as NGP per their own signs, confirm they do not in fact incur ANY loss at all here at any time, as they allow FREE parking.
There is no loss made until an NGP employee takes it upon themselves to actually issue a PCN to a vehicle. Up until that point there is no loss to anyone!
Permission is irrelevant in this case of loss! A parked vehicle is a parked vehicle, whether it’s had permission or not, and parking it either incurs losses for NGP, or it does not! I argue it does not, if they give vehicles with permission FREE parking, what’s the difference to not having it!

By allowing selected vehicles to park for FREE at their discretion, yet charging others £100, they themselves highlight my claim that the signs are prohibitive in nature, this charge is nothing more than a disguised penalty for parking, and NO actual genuine losses are ever incurred by the landowner or NGP, or flow as a direct result of vehicles parking on this land!

Vehicles of any description can drive onto, visit premises, and exit from this land 24/7 without charge. Any vehicle could drive back and fore up and down this road all day long if they so wish, and this would incur NGP NO losses, as they DO NOT make any charge or issue a PCN for any moving vehicles using the land for access purposes, yet they allege that by simply stopping and switching off your engine without ‘their’ permission, they then magically incur some financial loss!!

If the landowner, or NGP, incurs no losses by vehicles driving about on this land to access the premises thereon, or from vehicles parking there WITH their permission, how can NGP claim to suddenly incur losses when these same vehicles merely come to rest, without their permission?
I have never heard such total nonsense!

Ten vehicles could park here for a week, and if NGP did not send an operative to check on them, both NGP and the landowner would have incurred ABSOLUTELY NO LOSSES AT ALL, as it is an access road, and there is no regular charge levied to park on this land by any approved method, ie pay and display, etc, other than their made up, so called ‘tariff’, which is blatantly nothing more than a cleverly worded and disguised penalty, as legislation prevents them from directly issuing penalties!

It is my opinion that this operator cannot demonstrate any genuine initial quantifiable loss that flows directly from the parking of a vehicle here. 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, this loss will be obvious, ie not purchasing a pay and display ticket, etc.
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, but up until the point of PCN issue, there was NO LOSS!

Costs such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. I claim it is wholly true that the operator (NGP) would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not even been issued! In fact you could argue their very issuing of it caused any very minor (alleged) losses in the first place, and they would have had many of the same business overheads and operating costs even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

I find NGP’s charges are outrageously disproportionate, punitive in nature and intent, and again are nothing more than a disguised penalty.
The charges are entirely unjustifiable from a commercial perspective, other than merely to charge as much money as they think they can get away with.

3) Confusing, ambiguous, and contradictory signage - no contract made with driver

As mentioned previously, the alleged breach did not take place in a car park, and took place on what appears to be a normal public city road, that purely gives vehicle access to an area of commercial and industrial units and land.
Having subsequently visited the site, when turning from the main road onto the land in question, the junction is flanked on both sides by standard Cardiff city council road signs naming the street, as found on every other street and road in Cardiff, thus suggesting to anyone entering by car that the road is standard council owned land.
There is NO signage at all from NGP or anyone else at this junction entrance to the road indicating that you are entering onto any sort of private land. There is also no sign to stipulate where the threshold between public and private land actually lies.
It is not until you are over 100m into the road that you even see an NGP sign. This sign is placed on the boundary fence of a large industrial unit, directly alongside its main entrance gateway, giving the suggestion that the sign applies only to parking inside of that property beyond the boundary fence. On closer inspection of said sign, there is nothing on the sign to contradict this thought.
This sign is ambiguous in nature and leaves the driver in doubt as to the jurisdiction of its authority. Does it relate to inside or outside of that property? If these signs relate to any area outside of any fence or boundary, then I argue these signs should be independent of any property boundary, and be mounted on their own individual poles, to avoid any confusion and ambiguity.

There are also some properties that do not have any NGP sign on them at all, but have some directly either side of them. One is an electricity substation owned by Western Power Distribution (WPD) which carries its own sign stating blocking the gate carries a fee of £50.
How can two companies charge for parking on the same private land? They cannot! Surely only one of them has the right! If WPD can charge here between the NGP signs either side of its property, then it must be WPD land. Therefore if a WPD vehicle or any other vehicle can park here in the space between NGP signs, and not incur NGP any losses, I argue that any vehicles can park anywhere else on the road between other NGP signs without incurring them any losses also!

There are no markings, bays, or zones anywhere on the roadway that specify where you can or cannot park! Again more ambiguity and confusion! Signs are also placed on some fences facing away from view at angles away from the road. NGP signs are also contradictory, leading to yet more confusion. An enforcement sign from NGP is placed high up on the boundary of a premises known as PARC PLAY, on CURRAN EMBANKMENT, CF10 5DX (see section 1).

It is however placed directly above another sign from Parc Play themselves, advising that parking there is permitted for its customers. (see photo A attachment) How do NGP know who is a Parc Play customer, and who is not?
Can you park here, or not? Who has authority? Again yet more confusion! I have since contacted Parc Play who claim customer parking definitely IS allowed there, and they say it is their land! (like WPD above) So what right to NGP have to erect this sign here? None, according to Parc.

So do NGP even have the right to erect them anywhere else on this site at all? Who knows? (That is covered in section 4 below).

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently and clearly that the party MUST have known of it, AND agreed its terms. Upon visiting the site and examining the signs in detail, I eventually noticed the NGP sign states the ludicrous tariff for parking (without permission) is £100 per or part day.

I put it to you that no reasonable, normal person of sound mind and faculty, would willingly enter into, or knowingly agree to, the terms of such a financially extortionate and punitive parking contract. Especially seeing as there is council operated on street pay and display parking less than 50m from this site, at the much more reasonable tariff of £1.50ph.

The signs on site are obviously meant to be prohibitive in context, and any rational, sensible person, who SAW AND CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD these signs would realise that, and obviously would have chosen NOT to park a vehicle there!
The driver either could not have seen any clear sign, or like myself found them confusing, contradictory, and ambiguous in meaning and placement. Therefore there was no acceptance, and hence no contract was formed between the parties.

4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner

NGP do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper.
I require NGP to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and, without it, NGP have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers. If NGP produce a ‘witness statement’ I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or, indeed, is even an employee of the landowner.
I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable, and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms

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, 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. ‘ Confusing, ambiguous, poorly placed, and contradictory signage is far from transparent or obvious to drivers, as is disguising a penalty as a tariff. Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer". The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

In summary, I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on confusing, contradictory, and poorly located signs, in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum, which is nothing more than a disguised parking penalty, where no genuine loss has been caused, by a vehicle using an otherwise freely accessible roadway to access the premises thereon.

I put this operator to strict proof to justify their charge, under the circumstances described.
In the light of all of the above, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed.

Umkomaas

I have to say that my brain quickly turns to mush when reading the endless 'the longer the better, copy and dump' appeals that many OPs randomly select, on an 'anything will do' basis and want regulars to sort out for them, to save them too much effort!

I now rarely do much more than skim read to check main appeal points are covered and they've spotted the fact that the least they need to do is change the name of the PPC to that of the one chasing them.

I must say misterbarlow that I read (and thoroughly enjoyed) every word you wrote to systematically and clinically dismember the NGP charge in the appeal above. A great bit of original writing on your part, clearly showing you knew your onions!

I can well see why they decided run away and hide! They couldn't possibly cope with that howitzer. They had no chance. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall (but not their toilet wall) when they read that. There was no way they were going to let POPLA rip them a new one! Pity they had enough nous to bail out now, because wouldn't a court case have been very interesting?

Well done, Sir!

misterbarlow

Thanks mate.. I've always written good complaint letters, and always get my way with them, if I know what I am talking about..
and thats the thing, this was this was my first ever PCN in 20yrs of driving so I was totally green to the entire subject..

I didnt even know I could appeal, had never even heard of POPLA, did not know how to appeal to them properly (I would have sent mitigation), nor knew I could subsequently ignore DCA, etc.

When it arrived I freaked out on the driver (who its now safe to reveal again as Mrs B lol) who had only just been caught speeding the week before so was already in my bad books, and thought great got to pay this now as well..

It was only the likes on here of yourself, Redx, Enfield Freddy, coupon mad, and others who replied to my post and opened my eyes to this seedy scam that takes place all over the country on a daily basis, that I decided there was no way I was ever paying it...
I was literally sat on the pc the day it came, with the PPC website on one tab waiting to pay the £60 before it went up, whilst I googled on another tab, and came across this part of the forum... and BANG!!
Eyes were opened!!!

Its so wrong that they get away with some of this stuff... charging people for just driving in and out again, or having a tire touching the white line, leaving site to take cash out before returning, etc, its just criminal some of it, its nothing more than legalised obtaining monies by intimidation!!!

I read on another site there were like 6 million or so issued last year or something... and only around 13k even appealed, and half of those lost and still paid in the end, that's just shocking.. 7k from 6 million!!

Umkomaas

Now my evening BBQ has settled, burp, I re-read the entire thread. I realise I was a tad 'short' with you earlier on in it, but you certainly settled into getting things done quickly thereafter and as advised by the forum.

But reading back through the thread, and in case you've forgotten this, I thought I would remind you of some advice I gave in my first response:

NGP is a lightweight PPC, which, if you follow advice, is easily beatable. In fact, more than that, you have the possibility of caning them financially for 'messing' with you, as OAP hero Derek Donovan did, recounted in this linked thread. Read, digest, learn, and eventually action!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66659212&postcount=9

Remember, shooting out sh/yte is a two-way street, especially in this game. Now's the time to give them some grief of their own.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. They, no doubt, will be thinking 'we dodged that bullet'. Uh, uh, I don't think so ....... !

Let us know how much you squeeze them for; hopefully by at least twice what they were trying to sc@m from you.

I rather suspect you'll be somewhat pleased Mrs B parked where she did!