F1rst Parking PCN - Exeter University

jaran92

Hi,

I have recently been given a PCN at Exeter University by F1rst Parking. As yet I have made no correspondence with First or the university and have had no further information from them. This is a bit of a complicated one!

So I worked for a theatre that is on the campus, it is a separate entity to the University. As such I am not a member of University staff but am still required to pay for a permit. However my contract has no information on parking attached to it.

The theatre has a small loading bay at the back which is reserved for theatre staff to park on but still with a University Permit attached. The university parking team still check this patch of land. There is one small parking sign on the building itself, but nothing at the entrance to the loading area. The entrance to the area is hatched and creates a break in a pedestrian path - possibly about 5 metres. My understanding is that this hatching was put down to stop people that do not work for the theatre parking in the way when trucks need to get in to unload or get out before such a time as the university started properly looking after it.

The University Parking Team, who have a bit of a hatred for the theatre staff, regularly argue that we should not have vehicles parked across that hatching as it is blocking the students from using the path way and claim we would be sent to prison for manslaughter if one got run over!
Our counter argument is that that area is NOT a crossing, and rather that the students are crossing the road at that point. There is also a path over the other side of the road with no breaks in it they could use as an alternative.

So, on to the PCN. I no longer work full time for the theatre but have recently been there on a casual basis. On the date I got the PCN I was parked across this hatching. I was given a ticket for 'Causing obstruction' for £60.00 (£30 within 14 days). To my eyes, I was not causing an obstruction to anyone as everyone who I would be blocking were colleagues and would have just asked me to move if they needed to get out.

Do you think I have grounds to argue this one? Sorry if I haven't included all the info needed - there was a lot to try and get out in my head!! Ask if you need more info.

All the best

Umkomaas

Do you think I have grounds to argue this one?

Yes, but not like in the above!

Ask if you need more info.

Noooo! (Well, no more about students crossing the road, or such like). Your 'story' will be of little importance in fighting this.

Was this a windscreen ticket, with the 'infringement' taking place on 4/12/15? If so you won't be hearing anything from the PPC until sometime during the month of January 2016. I presume you are the registered keeper of the car?

You need to read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky which will guide you through what you need to do in the next few days in terms of an initial appeal to the PPC (almost straight away if they want appeals by post, or around day 26 after the date of the parking 'infringement' if they will take appeals online or via email). Reasons are all explained in the sticky.

jaran92

Hi,

Yeah it was a windscreen ticket - and yes the 'infringement' was on the 4th. I am the registered keeper. And I've read the newbies sticky - so I should just be appealing with that generic appeal?

Thanks

Fruitcake

jamieransom wrote: »

Hi,

Yeah it was a windscreen ticket - and yes the 'infringement' was on the 4th. I am the registered keeper. And I've read the newbies sticky - so I should just be appealing with that generic appeal?

Thanks

Yes. Don't alter it in any way, just copy and paste exactly as it is. This is to make sure that you don't inadvertently reveal who was driving and thus give away a very valuable appeal point if you need to make a second stage appeal.


As mentioned above, send it as close to the appeal deadline as you can but don't miss the deadline. If you have to send it by post, do it from a Post Office. Send it first class (NOT recorded/special delivery) and obtain a free certificate of posting.

jaran92

Hi All,

So I appealed to F1rst with the generic appeal given. They, of course, declined the appeal - see below email reply:

We acknowledge receipt of your appeal, regarding the above parking charge. Parking at this site is only for vehicles that are parked in accordance with the terms and conditions, as detailed on the signage on site. This signage is clear, in line with industry standards and clearly details any charges that may be imposed, should these terms and conditions be breached.

I have now had the opportunity to review this case and my findings are:


After reviewing the photographic evidence and also your appeal information; on this occasion I will be rejecting your appeal. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they are parked within a valid bay and not causing obstruction. The terms and conditions of parking are outlined within the signage as located on site. We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage, and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible, so the Parking Charge is fully enforceable. First Parking are also fully compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act. Our Notice to Keeper clearly states 'If you were not the driver at the time, please tell us who was driving. If you are unable to provide the driver's name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

I therefore uphold the operative's decision to issue this parking charge notice.

You now have a number of options from which to choose:

1.Pay the parking charge at the price of £60

2. Make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £30, and should POPLA's decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £60.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us through our debt recovery service and may proceed with Court action against you.

I actually now have a copy of the photos from when I sent the appeal. One shows the signage but as I mentioned in the OP it is so tiny and not at the entrance to the parking area.

So, i'm presuming the next step is POPLA appeal, however when looking over the Newbie sticky and going on the POPLA appeal site, I'm slightly confused as to which route I need to go down to continue arguing this...

Also, I have had no NTK and we are over the 28 day mark...

Thanks all for your help so far.

Umkomaas

They've got 56 days (from the day after the parking incident) to issue a compliant NtK to invoke keeper liability. If they don't get one out in that time they can only chase the driver - and you have no obligation (legal or moral) to name him/her.

You now need, first of all, to check your deadline date for your POPLA appeal. Do it here:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

Then you need to time your POPLA appeal (provided it is within the deadline) so that the 56 days above have expired, and then your first, and major appeal point is 'No Keeper Liability - no compliant notice served within 56 days'.

So now you need to start drafting your POPLA appeal by reading post #3 of the newbies sticky and follow guidelines there. Post it up here for a quick review, but don't copy and dump random points from various other appeals and expect regulars to proof read and put it all together nicely for you.

Important action though before you do anything else - remove any identifying references from your prior post - your name is writ large there, scrub it and anything else that will identify you to the PPC via this thread and find tomorrow you have a NtK in the post - the lack of a NtK can be a showstopper for you.

EDIT - oh dear, I note that it looks like you are using your name as your forum name, not the best idea in the world, especially as PPCs read these threads.

HTH

jaran92

Hi All,

Thanks for the info. We are now past the 56 day mark - no NTK. So, please see my below draft POPLA Appeal. What do you guys think?

Re F1rst Parking LLP Notice Number *************
POPLA appeal verification code: ****************

I am writing to you as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle attached to this PCN notice. I was extremely disappointed when I became aware of this PCN for £60 (£30 within 14 days). The PCN was given on grounds of ‘Causing an Obstruction’ - however the vehicle in question has a parking permit for the area it was parked in - and was known to other employees in that place of work. It would have been moved at their request, therefore raising several questions - to whom was it causing an obstruction? And why does this warrant a fine of £60?

Please see the below list of points that form the basis of my appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability - No compliant notice served within 56 days.
2. Inadequate signage resulting in no valid contract formed.
3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

1. No Keeper Liability - No compliant notice served within 56 days.
The PCN placed on the vehicle was dated 4th December 2015. I, as registered keeper of the vehicle, appealed to F1rst Parking on the 30th December 2016. As of the 29th January 2016, 56 days after the alleged infringement, no formal ‘Notice to Keeper’ has been received as per POFA 2012.

Therefore, none of the mandatory information described in POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraphs 8 and 9 have been made available to me as the registered keeper. As a result the conditions set out in Paragraph 6 have not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that F1rst Parking LLP provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

F1rst Parking LLP have not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability doesn’t apply to this PCN. As registered keeper I decline to divulge who was the driver at the time of the alleged infringement, as is my right. F1rst Parking LLP have failed to name the driver nor provide any evidence as to who the driver was. This renders me, as keeper, not liable to the charges.

2. Inadequate signage resulting in no valid contract formed.
The only notice is up on a wall, away from the single light source in the car park area, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. No doubt that any photos provided by F1rst of the signage will be misleading as to how small and un-noticable the sign is. The sign is also a ‘University of Exeter’ branded sign and is not obviously a set of terms and conditions for parking set out by F1rst. One of the photos attached to this PCN do show the sign far in the distance and high up on the wall of the building.
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. Therefore I think in this case it is hard to argue the driver could have seen the sign under these circumstances and therefore entered in to the contract happily and knowingly. It is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (Consideration between both parties, offer, acceptance and transparency of terms offered) were not satisfied.

3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The attached charge of £60 is unreasonable for ‘causing obstruction’ in an area which is reserved for staff working in the same building. This contravenes the BPA Code of Practice section 19. Furthermore, The Department for Transport guidelines state that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."
F1rst Parking should therefore explain their ‘charge’ by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss on this particular parking site 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 F1rst Parking have no cause of action to pursue this charge. I believe that the operator is not sticking to 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”.
F1rst Parking LLP 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 F1rst Parking LLP are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown they supply and must be shown in the contract.

Therefore I respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Kind regards,
[Name of Registered Keeper]

Coupon-mad

You need 'no landowner authority' as well because most POPLA appeals win on that!

jaran92

Okay, I'm on the case! Thanks.

jaran92

Okay, how is this for 'no landowner authority'. Should I be making this point 4 in my appeal? Or should I go above my 'pre-estimate of loss' argument?

4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
It appears that F1rst Parking LLP does not own the car park and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising. F1rst Parking must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach of contract, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true owner of the land has no authority in their own right that would meet the requirements outlined in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
F1rst has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.
I therefore request F1rst Parking LLP to provide documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier to POPLA to support this NCP. In order to comply with the Code of Practice, this contract muse specifically grant F1rst Parking with the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between F1rst and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

Coupon-mad

Just a typo, should read 'PCN' at the end here:

I therefore request F1rst Parking LLP to provide documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier to POPLA to support this NCP.

It doesn't really matter which order you put them in. Your point #1 wins IMHO, unless F1rst don't supply the Uni contract in which case POPLA will be spoilt for choice.