BPA Code of Practice, Paragraph 22.8

Coupon-mad

prjohnsonnn10 I admire your work. Nicely done throughout. I recall your Chiltern Railways efforts:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/met-parking-deceive-motorists-for-years.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716193/Rail-commuters-hit-40-000-bogus-parking-fines-Pirates-accused-demanding-money-commuters-using-wrong-law.html

ManxRed

This seems fairly straightforward.

It's not relevant land, although there is a sentence on the back which states that if payment is not made within 28 days of issue, then they will get the RK details from the DVLA for the purposes of recovery of the notice.

Now, although that sentence doesn't actually make sense, and was probably written by a 5 year old, there is an implication that they are going to get the RK details in order to try and recover the money from the RK. Naughty, naughty, very naughty (to quote The Shamen from their popular hit record Ebeneezer Goode).

Worthy of a complaint to Trading Standards, given that as this is not relevant land then they cannot possibly invoke any kind of liability onto the Registered Keeper and this document seriously mis-represents the Registered Keeper's true legal position.

Why don't they think clause 22.8 of the AOS code of practice doesn't apply? They either respond to your appeal within 35 days, or they tell you that it will take longer than 35 days for reasons they must specify. If they haven't done either of these then the matter is closed and you should write and tell them this. If they continue to pursue it, then you ask the BPA to investigate the breach.

Incidentally, the 'offence' here is 'failure to display...' which isn't a bylaw offence anyway, so they're stuffed if they suddenly decide to invoke bylaws at a later date.

Guys_Dad

ManxRed wrote: »

This seems fairly straightforward.

It's not relevant land, although there is a sentence on the back which states that if payment is not made within 28 days of issue, then they will get the RK details from the DVLA for the purposes of recovery of the notice.

Now, although that sentence doesn't actually make sense, and was probably written by a 5 year old, there is an implication that they are going to get the RK details in order to try and recover the money from the RK. Naughty, naughty, very naughty (to quote The Shamen from their popular hit record Ebeneezer Goode).

Worthy of a complaint to Trading Standards, given that as this is not relevant land then they cannot possibly invoke any kind of liability onto the Registered Keeper and this document seriously mis-represents the Registered Keeper's true legal position.

Why don't they think clause 22.8 of the AOS code of practice doesn't apply? They either respond to your appeal within 35 days, or they tell you that it will take longer than 35 days for reasons they must specify. If they haven't done either of these then the matter is closed and you should write and tell them this. If they continue to pursue it, then you ask the BPA to investigate the breach.

Incidentally, the 'offence' here is 'failure to display...' which isn't a bylaw offence anyway, so they're stuffed if they suddenly decide to invoke bylaws at a later date.

It does say that they will request the RK's details for the purpose of recovery of the notice. However, it does not state specifically that the recovery will be claimed from the RK, although one could imply that.
Their subsequent actions may very well confirm that this is their intention, but the wording on the back of the notice could simply mean that they would seek the RK's cooperation in tracking the driver.

ManxRed

Agreed, which is why I used the word 'implication'. I think the recipient has every reason though to interpret this how he likes if there is a sufficient level of ambiguity. If Meteor have a different meaning then it's up to them to word it sufficiently clearly. It's THEIR ticket after all.

Maybe it just needs someone in authority to tell Meteor to amend the wording on the tickets, or maybe they've done it deliberately to be misleading in itself. Surely not?

That's MY interpretation and I'm sticking to it!

dr1981_2

Thanks for all your help so far, can you tell me what you mean by 'not relevant land' please? Also, if they have advised that BPA 22.8 is not relevant in this case, then is POPLA the right route for them to go down? I was not the driver when this ticket was issued but was the registered keeper, I have not told them who the driver was.

I need to submit my POPLA appeal in the next couple of days, should i use the normal arguments, or focus on the points raised above?

Thanks in advance

ManxRed

Essentially, if the land is covered by Bylaws (and this land is) then Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't apply so they CANNOT hold the Keeper Liable if they don't know who the driver was.

PoFA only applies to 'relevant land' as defined in the act, land covered by bylaws are excepted and deemed 'not relevant land'.

Coupon-mad

dr1981 wrote: »

Thanks for all your help so far, can you tell me what you mean by 'not relevant land' please? Also, if they have advised that BPA 22.8 is not relevant in this case, then is POPLA the right route for them to go down? I was not the driver when this ticket was issued but was the registered keeper, I have not told them who the driver was.

I need to submit my POPLA appeal in the next couple of days, should i use the normal arguments, or focus on the points raised above?

Thanks in advance

Google 'POFA relevant land'.

Show us your POPLA appeal using the usual arguments plus the points raised above. ''Throw the kitchen sink at them'', is my philosophy and it's worked for me for years at 'old' POPLA and new.