Window Screen Ticket Issued - Now received NTK... Advise please?

Umkomaas

You also need to reference the tiny small print, which no doubt contains much of what the PPC believes to be contractual stuff. Compare it to the signage requirements of the BPA CoP, paras 18.1 to 18.11 and to Appendix B - font size, positioning etc. how can that small print possibly be read and understood from a passing car.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2014_update_V5.pdf

Fruitcake

The bit saying drivers parking in a disabled bay must display a blue badge is a breach of the Equality Act 2010. The blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, and a blue badge is not the only indicator of a disability.


Don't bother with mitigation such as "The driver didn't see the image on the ground because there were several cars around him and he was concentrating on making sure he was ok to pull in plus watching another car pull out."


Just say that the driver did not see the signs because signage was inadequate and provide photo-evidence to back it up.

totallytech

Hey Fruitcake,

How would I include the Equality Act info?

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: 18/02/15 : 11:42AM
Date of PCN: 07/04/15

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of “Parking in Disabled Bay without clearly displaying a Valid Disabled Badge”. This issue date on the invoice is 18/02/15.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
3. No authority to levy charges
4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
7. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that Norfolk Parking Enforcement are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I also note that as per Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice that the AOS logo is not correctly placed in the P symbol. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they ‘must’ have been seen by the driver — who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park — and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

7. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours faithfully

I'm not really sure on how to include the information about the breach of the EA2010.
Although there was no blue badge seen they do not know who the driver was taking to the shops. One of the passengers could easily be registered disabled but does not drive.

I did also find this:

So I'm thinking:


In a report to AOS Board titled Discussion at ISB re Equality by Patrick Troy on 10th April 2014

The Independent Scrutiny Board considered a complaint by a member of the public which suggested that motorists with disabilities had certain rights under equality legislation which should be enforced by POPLA .

The board is of the view that the Equality Act lmposes on the car park operator a requirement to make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of a disabled person.

The complaint that demanding the display of a blue badge is unfair does have some merit.

Badges are only issued to those people who meet the criteria set down by the Department for Transport. Those criteria are different to the definition of a disabled person in the Equality Act. lt is, therefore, possible to be a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act, have a need for a reasonable adiustment under that Act, but not have a blue badge.

ColliesCarer

Edit:

Have removed original content - skim read and didn't appreciate situation

Guys_Dad

Thanks CC.

No need for this post now. :beer:

totallytech

So IYO should I include any of the EA2010 stuff at all?

Guys_Dad

totallytech wrote: »

So IYO should I include any of the EA2010 stuff at all?

Only if there was someone in the car who would be covered by the act otherwise you are being dishonest. On here, we leave that to the PPCs.

totallytech

I could not honestly say there was a disabled person in the vehicle on that day, on that basis I'm going with:

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: 18/02/15 : 11:42AM
Date of PCN: 07/04/15

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of “Parking in Disabled Bay without clearly displaying a Valid Disabled Badge”. This issue date on the invoice is 18/02/15.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
3. No authority to levy charges
4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
7. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that Norfolk Parking Enforcement are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I also note that as per Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice that the AOS logo is not correctly placed in the P symbol. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they ‘must’ have been seen by the driver — who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park — and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

7. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant

That's a really old template and not a very good one for POPLA stage, a load of the appeal is a waste of time. There is no such thing as a 'Notice to Appellant'.

You need a better template than that and a better breakdown of why the NTK is not compliant, not just saying it fails to identify the creditor which is just about the weakest point you could focus on when saying 'no keeper liability'. Compare the NTK to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 and blow by blow point out to POPLA where the points in paragraph 8 are not in the NTK. It's easier than it sounds, really simple (look at the NTK, is the wording from 8.1 there, nope, next bit, 8.2, is the wording there, nope...etc.).

totallytech

Hi Coupon-Mad,
I've been looking and looking but there is no clear template on MSE since its been removed now. I'm reading the forums and checking the latest posts to see if anyone is using a newer template than mine however most that I've seen mention No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant. Do you happen to have a template that I can adjust to fit for mine? I'm down to 7 days before Popla expires.

Thanks