PCN NTK from NPE whilst waiting in car

totallytech

Hi,
I've been trying to locate the owner of the land - it looks like the only way to tell is by paying £6 to land registry to find out who owns the land?

Does anyone else know of an alternative?

Umkomaas

totallytech wrote: »

Hi,
I've been trying to locate the owner of the land - it looks like the only way to tell is by paying £6 to land registry to find out who owns the land?

Does anyone else know of an alternative?

Google (or other web search engines), local council planning department, if a retail park contact the retailer(s) ask who they pay rent to.

totallytech

I bit the bullet and checked the land registry place. it looks like the properties and the parking area in front of each property (47 & 49) are owned by two different people. One was registered back in 1983 - a quick search comes up with the last known record of him and his wife in 2002.... The other property was registered in 2010 - I do have the owners details so I may be able to contact them directly but I wouldnt think that NPE would have two seperate contracts with the two different land owners but under one agreement (47-49 Dereham Road, Norwich).

bobbyd123_2

hi totally tech, i have received an identical letter to yours regarding the same parking spot, just wondering what action you took or if you have appealed to POPLAR and had a response yet?

totallytech

So far I know:

NPE are not registered with BPA for ANPR use.
The NTK received relates to 47-49 Dereham Road, however the businesses named and the signs are placed on 53, 51, 49, 47 Dereham Road.
Certainly 47 and 49 have different owners according to land registry.
The owners of 47 Dereham Road are directors of the company trading there but luckily the driver had parked in front of 49 Dereham Road.

Herzlos

4- Following the judgement of the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye v Beavis on 23rd April 2015, we can confirm that the parking charge is considered to be a deterrent to parking in a restricted area and the charge is not extravagant or unconscionable.
5- The parking charge made is not a penalty and the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss is not relevant

So it's a deterrent but not a penalty. Really? I don't understand the difference...

totallytech

I'm thinking of sending this to POPLA:

“
Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXX using POPLA verification code XXXXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions and chargeable regime
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
7. Summary

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The amount of £100.00 demanded by Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.
Given that Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.

2. No contract between driver / Inadequate signage.
As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.
Due to their 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.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs.
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd does not own this car park (As is proven by the land registry information) and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd produce to POPLA the contract between the landowner and the Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd.

4. Unlawful penalty charge.
Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system.
Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions and chargeable regimes. I put Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions and chargeable regimes that are used on the site in question. I also note that after checking the BPA website, Norfolk Parking Enforcement is not registered to use ANPR equipment, however they clearly are.

6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper.
The Notice to Keeper sent by Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd to myself is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The Operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, which requires words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... ". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

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

How does this sound?