P4PARKING Notice

Coupon-mad

manuraheel wrote: »

Helloh all
Its nearly time I sent in my POPLA appeal. Just a few questions, I did receive pictures attached to the decision from P4parking, am I supposed to do anything with them. What does rebutting them mean. Secondly haven't received NTK is been more than 56 days now.

So you need to use a POPLA appeal already here (find one from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and pick one as your base which is about a similar type of car park, either free, permit or Pay and Display) and adapt it. You need your first appeal point to be an extra one that not everyone has (lucky you!) about 'no keeper liability' should be along these lines which has wording lifted from several old POPLA decisions:

1. No keeper liability under Schedule 4 - lack of NTK
The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ at all. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving and no evidence of this has been produced, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a NTK.


What you say below should be in the introduction to your POPLA appeal. 'I am the registered keeper and am not liable for this charge. Firstly, ...

just reading the rejection letter from p4parking, firstly they have the dates wrong
- the date I sent the appeal to them
- the date they wrote the rejection letter
Both have been mentioned on the letter.

Secondly they write " as the driver its your. ...." I have appealed as the keeper of the car! They are making assumptions.

Then start your several appeal points with the first one as shown and the rest adapted from the examples linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread (DO NOT look for one about the same parking firm, that's not relevant, it's the details that must match/be adapted). Change anything not relevant to your case, obviously the parking company's name but also any lines which are not relevant to your case, and then show us what you have cobbled together.

manuraheel

Thanks Coupon Mad, just working on this now. I do have a question, I do believe the parking signs are not placed properly around the area which is quite obvious in the evidence they have sent me. It so dark you cant even see the signs then they have added a picture of the signs which seems clearer because of the bright flash. There are two sings right next to each other one says Visitors only and the sign next to it says Permit holders in big letters ( and lots of other things in tiny font probably). This is so misleading, the car does have a permit though I am not sure if it was on display, I can see a permit for something in the pictures they have sent me but I am not sure if it was that can I just assume it was and add that to my appeal ( even though i think the sign that says permit holder only does still mention I cant park there but that must be in the tiniest of writing definitely not visible from the car or even out of the car, will probably need a torch)

Coupon-mad

This must be the P4Parking one then, as you are at POPLA stage?

I do have a question, I do believe the parking signs are not placed properly around the area which is quite obvious in the evidence they have sent me. It so dark you cant even see the signs then they have added a picture of the signs which seems clearer because of the bright flash.

Good, you can use their own pictures in your POPLA appeal in your section about illegible signs; copy them and embed them into your word document, suitably cropped to show just the unreadable signs and then increase the size so the Assessor can see, to make your point. Point out the terms are only viisble because their operative has used a flash, whereas car headlights do not point up at that angle and there is no other ambient lighting near the sign so it would be illegible in darkness and is certainly not 'prominent' and not placed copiously around the site, so it is the polar opposite of the 'Beavis case' in this respect.

Also it cannot be assumed that a driver has had any opportunity to read any other terms as they may not be the resident (the driver has not been identified). Visitors can park according to the signs so there would be no prior knowledge of any parking charge risk - the signs MUST be very clear and show the charge itself in large lettering readable in the dark, if the PPC wishes to enforce in hours of darkness (BPA CoP requirement).

There are two signs right next to each other one says Visitors only and the sign next to it says Permit holders in big letters (and lots of other things in tiny font probably). This is so misleading

Say so in the POPLA appeal. Point out that any ambiguity in terms must be interpreted in the way which most favours a consumer (Consumer Rights Act 2015) and the burden lies with the operator to proof that their terms were transparent, fair, legible and capable of creating a contract, which they are not.

I bet the sum of the parking charge cannot be read from their evidence (expect perhaps in very small print lit up only by a camera flash)? If so, that's VERY important to point out. No £100 (or whatever it is) in large letters = no contract accepted to pay that sum and also it's a breach of the BPA CoP and a breach of Schedule 4 which is dependent upon the parking charge itself being 'adequately communicated' to a driver (not hidden in small print in the dark).

the car does have a permit and I can see a permit for something in the pictures they have sent me

Say so in your POPLA appeal. Remember you are appealing as registered keeper so you cannot be expected to know what was displayed and the burden (again) lies with the operator to show that a permit was displayed as well as that the signage transparently and consitently required one to be displayed.

Don't forget 'no landowner authority' as well of course. You will see a pattern in the example POPLA appeals, use them!

manuraheel

Please have a look at this draft, I still have to go over it and see if I have edited properly

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

As a law abiding citizen who always pays his way, I was extremely upset to hear of a £100 ‘parking charge notice’ displayed on the vehicle of which I am registered keeper for. The vehicle in question was parked in a residential car park and does hold a valid permit.

As the registered keeper I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from P4PARKING as I am not liable for this charge. Firstly I would like to mention a few errors on the rejection letter to my appeal to P4PARKING:

The rejection letter has been dated X/X/X which is a date before the PCN was issued.
They have mentioned the date I submitted the appeal as X/X/X which is in the future.


I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
2) Vehicle issued the PCN is considered to be a genuine resident
3) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
4) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
5) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
6) No contract between driver and Premier Park

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by P4PARKING. As a notice to driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on x/x/x and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by x/x/x . As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that P4PARKING provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.



2. Vehicle issued the PCN is considered to be a genuine resident
With regards to the PCN, the vehicle in question is in possession of a valid permit at the time of contravention. If for example all of the spaces were occupied by valid residents, regardless of whether permits were displayed, P4PARKING would still have incurred zero loss. When empty, these spaces cannot be re-offered in exchange for fees to those who have no association with the buildings, making the charges punitive.

The reason landowners employ parking companies are to stop non-residents abusing the car park in question. Genuine residents should not be deterred from using the parking spaces provided to their properties.

3. Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.
After inspecting the signs after the driver received the charge, I noted

a) The signs are not prominent and not placed copiously around the site. (picture below)
b) Two signs have been placed together one which says “permit holder only” (which the car has and can be seen in the windscreen) and the other “visitors parking only”, I believe these signs are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. It cannot be assumed that the driver has had any opportunity to read any other terms as they may not be the resident. Visitors can park according to the signs so there would be no prior knowledge of any parking charge risk, the signs must be very clear and show the charge itself in large lettering readable in the dark. The signs were also unlit which makes them very difficult to read in the hours of darkness especially during winter. These were easily missed as they are on one side of the car park only, with low height which could easily be concealed by cars.
(will attach pictures I have taken to prove my point )
The notices are away from any light source in the car park area and the parking charge of £100 is in small font which is not even readable from the evidence provided to me by P4PARKING which is in breach of 2(3) of schedule 4 of the POFA, which means no contract has been formed with a driver before parking.
Any photos supplied by P4PARKING to POPLA will no doubt show the signage in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera with an extremely bright flash.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

4. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. P4PARKING must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so P4PARKING have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

P4PARKING cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe P4PARKING are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown P4PARKING supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to appeal point 5 below.

5. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, P4PARKING must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put P4PARKING to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between P4PARKING and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to P4PARKING.

6. No contract between driver and P4PARKING
As per the property lease signed and agreed to in 2015 there is no mention of P4PARKING, or any other parking company or third party to manage the car park in question. There is no mention of requiring to display a permit to park in the space provided with the property. As per appeal point 5 above, the vehicle was parked while observing the requirements of the property lease therefore there is no contract between the keeper and P4PARKING.

Below you will find a picture of the permit the vehicle holds.
{Image of Permit} Cars permit has bay no. on it what should I do? or should I change the point that the permit was on display and say it is not clear if permit has to be on display as writing is small etc, after reading the rejection letter I feel as if they are saying if the car had the resident permit on display it would have been ok even though I know its only for visitors and i feel thats the image they are trying to portray to POPLA. What if they have a close up of the permit on the windscreen?


This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

{Name of Keeper}


option 2 on the POPLA from "I was not improperly parked" should I tick anything or should I leave all the reasoning options blank and attach this document?

Thank you in advance

salmosalaris

Change the heading of point 1
It is not that the NtK was non compliant but that no NtK was issued as required by schedule 4 of POFA therefire there can be no keeper liability

Coupon-mad

You can change and add to this part, as shown:


The notices are away from any light source in the car park area and the parking charge of £100 is in small font which is not even readable from the evidence provided to me by P4PARKING. Inadequate notice of a 'parking charge' means there was no 'relevant obligation' and no relevant contract, contrary to 2(3) of schedule 4 of the POFA.

This view is supported in the Beavis decision by Lord Mance at 191:
''...The judge and Court of Appeal (para 28) also found some support in this Act for the view that charges of this kind are not to be regarded as unenforceable. In my view, that is a misreading of the Act. The Act merely “makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle” (section 56), in circumstances “where (a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and (b) those charges have not been paid in full” (Schedule 4, paragraph 1). The reference to a relevant “obligation” does not exclude the penalty doctrine. On the contrary, if a charge stipulated contractually is a penalty, there will be no obligation.’’

Below you will find a picture of the permit the vehicle holds.
{Image of Permit} Cars permit has bay no. on it what should I do? or should I change the point that the permit was on display and say it is not clear if permit has to be on display as writing is small etc, after reading the rejection letter I feel as if they are saying if the car had the resident permit on display it would have been ok even though I know its only for visitors and i feel thats the image they are trying to portray to POPLA. What if they have a close up of the permit on the windscreen?

I would not bother to show POPLA the permit because it is irrelevant really and as you say, could make things more difficult.

option 2 on the POPLA from "I was not improperly parked" should I tick anything or should I leave all the reasoning options blank and attach this document?

Don't choose that one. The NEWBIES thread post #3 say choose 'other' then just add a few words 'see attached PDF for my full appeal'.


And if they send evidence be ready to rebut it and show how this charge is not like Beavis, depending on how they argue whether they think it is based upon a GPEOL or if they just throw the Beavis case at it! I don't think it matters at this stage that you have asked them to justify their GPEOL quite simply (nothing about Beavis yet). With a small operator that's normally enough to hook a disjointed reply you can then rebut.

manuraheel

Alright thank you all, will be posting the appeal soon. I will remove the part that the permit was on the windscreen and just say the car holds a valid permit

Coupon-mad

Posting it here you mean for final scrutiny?

Not 'posting' it to POPLA, as stated above, you submit it as a PDF attached under 'other' on the POPLA website.

manuraheel

Appeal sent, fingers crossed!

manuraheel

Just read your message, yes thats what I've done. Attached as a PDF.