Help With PCN Please (Unclear Signage)

Apollo18

Reading through PoFA, there seem to have been numerous errors and omissions with the NTK:

3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land other than—(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority. (2) “traffic authority” means the following—(e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district
In my case the land is controlled by Wing Parking on behalf of the London Borough so I am not sure if this clause is breached or not but the land is provided by a London borough.
Any thoughts?

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper...is the amount specified in the notice to keeper. - the NTK stated an amount of £120 was due from the driver but I then received a debt collectors demand (after sending in an appeal) asking for £150. The amount given on the PCN and shown on the signs at the site is £100 - is this a point of appeal or just bad practice from the PCC?

8(2)(a) The notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates
It gives the registration number but no other information about the vehicle; it gives the time of issue but no period of parking: would this be considered sufficient info to meet this condition (is it worth me mentioning it in my appeal)?

8(2)(c) states that a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper must inform of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges
What sort or description is expected? My NTK only says that the "The opportunity to pay at the reduced amount has now passed and the full amount is now due" and (incorrectly) gives the amount outstanding as £120. It gives the reason for issue as "no parking permit". Would this be considered a sufficient description of charges?

Apollo18

(cont.)

8(2)(e) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper...must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver
My NTK does not do any of this.

8(2)(f) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper...must warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover the amount from the keeper
None of this was done on my NTK it just stated "Full payment must be made by the driver within 28 days of the date of this letter to avoid further recovery action."

8(2)(g) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper...must inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment
My NTK does not do inform of any discount for prompt payment.

8(7) When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10
I am not sure if evidence is meant to accompany the NTK or if this clause is just a provision for any future condition that may be made. No evidence was provided with the NTK (although the PCN did give info on how to view photos they have as evidence of the contravention).

Coupon-mad

Yes your points have merit and I agree, I have used an appeal against Wing before where I said the land is run by an ALMO which reports to and runs the site 'on behalf of' the local authority therefore this cannot be 'relevant land'.

I think you'd need to explain to POPLA what an ALMO is and why this means the land is 'controlled by' the parent Council - which absolutely remains the landowner with title - and why that means it's not relevant land (because new POPLA don't seem to quite 'get' the detail of certain appeal points yet, unless spelt out):

http://www.almos.org.uk/almos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-length_management_organisation

I have seen Wing admit in POPLA appeals that it's not 'relevant land' before which makes your job easier as a keeper apellant, if the other side agree and cannot rebut this point.

Forget this one, there is nothing yet prescribed under para 10, you are right that this clause is just a provision for any future condition that may be made:

8(7) When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10
I am not sure if evidence is meant to accompany the NTK or if this clause is just a provision for any future condition that may be made. No evidence was provided with the NTK (although the PCN did give info on how to view photos they have as evidence of the contravention).

Apollo18

If it is of any interest you can see the PCN and subsequent letters I have received below (scroll to the left to view them).

http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r485/phlpjns/Mobile%20Uploads/Parking%20Letters/PCNfront_zpsrzojjcup.jpeg

I have to get my appeal to POPLA finished today and I will post it here later before submitting it.

Coupon-mad

Great, a PCS 'Notice to Owner' is not one which is capable of establishing keeper liability.

By them using that version rather than a 'Notice to Keeper' they are not invoking the POFA and clearly they know this is not relevant land. But please spell that out to POPLA as they need help to see it and IMHO, POPLA will even need help to see that a NTO from PCS has none of the wording it would need from para 8 of Schedule 4.

Also your rejection letter was dated 15th Febraury so you have another week to get the POPLA appeal in, so please don't rush it or you will regret it. This is not about saying there has been no loss so don't copy old ones which talk about 'GPEOL' and 'no loss/disproportionate charge' without distinguishing the case from PE v Beavis.

Apollo18

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Also your rejection letter was dated 15th Febraury so you have another week to get the POPLA appeal in, so please don't rush it or you will regret it.

Unfortunately I have to go overseas tomorrow morning and will not be back until the beginning of April. I won't have access to a computer while I am there except for that on my phone.

So a NTO is not the same as a NTK? I was intending including the points I have posted above about the Notice not meeting the criteria given by POFA and the signage not following the guidelines given by the BPA - would that be ok?

As far as I understand it, the Beavis case was for a driver who had overstayed the free 2hrs parking and the judge ruled that the charge was fair because it acted as a deterrent to stop people overstaying. How would I distinguish my case from this as wouldn't they just say the charge is a deterrent to stop people parking without a permit?

Coupon-mad

So a NTO is not the same as a NTK?

Not from PCS, no. A NTO is their non-POFA version. But I know that - some others here know that - but POPLA might not spot it (even though it is blindingly obvious!) unless you point out the omissions in wording compared to para 8 of Sch4.

I was intending including the points I have posted above about the Notice not meeting the criteria given by POFA and the signage not following the guidelines given by the BPA - would that be ok?

It's a start but not enough and you MUST have all points in at the start, POPLA seem to be ignoring anything added later. You need 'no landowner authority' like you will see in lots of other POPLA examples.

As far as I understand it, the Beavis case was for a driver who had overstayed the free 2hrs parking and the judge ruled that the charge was fair because it acted as a deterrent to stop people overstaying. How would I distinguish my case from this as wouldn't they just say the charge is a deterrent to stop people parking without a permit?

Search the forum for 'POPLA permit Beavis' and look for wording posted by salmosalaris which distinguishes a permit case from the Supreme Court decision. You must include a strong argument now, up front about this even though really you should win on 'no keeper liability' as long as you remain careful never to accidentally type about who parked/didn't see the terms on signs.

Apollo18

This post has been deleted by the author.

Quentin

If your car is on those photos, (which in any case can identify you via the timestamp) so you need to take down the link.


PPCs patrol here!

Apollo18

You can see some photos I have taken of the entrance to the parking site below:

http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r485/phlpjns/Photos%20of%20Entrance%20to%20the%20Site/image_zpsqxapnomr.jpeg