**F1rst Parking Evidence Pack! What do I do now? :(**

NotPayingThisNoWay

Hello,
I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE!

(I’m new to this so I Just wanted to apologize in advance if I’ve posted in the wrong section or if I’m doing something wrong)

Here are details of my situation:
Ticket Company: F1rst Parking
Location: University of Hertfordshire Car Park
Fine Cost: £40 (£80 if not paid within certain no. of days)
Windscreen ticket date: 18 November 2015
Letter sent home date: 22 December 2015
Rejection Letter from F1rst Parking: January 2016
Letter to POPLA sent: 29/01/2016

So on the 18th November 2015, a ticket was left on my windscreen for parking at a university car park without a permit. I Ignored this initial ticket however on 22/12/2015 I was sent a letter to my home address. I was informed about ticket appeals and shown this forum, I decided to go ahead and appeal this ticket.

I tried my best and followed the procedures set about by the experienced members on here.
1. I sent a small letter to F1rst Parking appealing the ticket and asking to withdraw the penalty.
2. I received a rejection letter and they provided me with a POPLA code
3. Using the forums on here and my own words I wrote up a 7 point letter arguing why the fine should not stand. I sent this letter to POPLA.
4. I received a ‘Evidence Pack’ from F1rst Parking showing pictures of the car and signage from where It was parked.
5. That brings us to the present!

Here is a link of the evidence pack - (I cant post links so Please delete the ** in the link below to access pics)

s204.**photobucket.co**m/user/tawf949**4/library/F1rst%20Par**king

At this point, I can honestly say I probably should have just paid this ticket because it’s all becoming a big hassle!
I was hoping that you guys out there could help me with this scenario, I’m not sure what the next step is. Do I write another letter? They’ve given me a 7 day period, which really isn’t enough time to think.
I’ve come this far and I really don’t want to end up paying this ticket.. :embarasse

Any help is appreciated :T
Thank you

Umkomaas

Here's the live link:

http://s204.photobucket.com/user/tawf9494/media/F1rst%20Parking/5.png.html?sort=3&o=3

It would be helpful to see a copy of your initial appeal and your POPLA appeal so we have a bit more context and to know exactly what you said.

On a quick skim of the linked Evidence Pack, the signage suggests the land on which the parking event took place was that of the University of Hertfordshire (presumably therefore the landowner) yet the 'contract' (if you can call it that) is between F1rst Parking and Securitas Security Service! So this is one major 'own goal' beckoning - POPLA has been upholding appeals on the basis that contracts have not been with the landowner (as per the requirement within the BPA CoP).

Others may also want to comment as the evening progresses.

nigelbb

The sign clearly states "Permit Holders Only" so the claim that the "fine" is for not displaying a permit or valid pay & display ticket is a lie as there is no option to pay & display. There is in fact no offer of parking except to permit holders so as the driver did not have a permit they could not have entered into a contract for parking & therefore cannot have breached the terms & conditions of that contract & rendered themselves liable for damages.

Coupon-mad

It's only a 9 page evidence pack with a cover sheet written by a girly, TOWIE-loving teenage level 1 BTEC student (look at the handwriting). You can beat this easily; it's really nothing to panic about.

A few observations:

- there are 8 pages there not nine. 'Tracey the trainee' has written 9 sheets on the cover sheet. So did you get 9 sheets? Is it the PCN that's missing? Was it in the evidence? it seems there was a NTK as well but haven't they even shown it? They have to show BOTH documents - and if either are missing, you can say to POPLA there can be no keeper liability as F1rst have not shown the PCN and/or NTK.

- if F1rst never issued a NTK (postal version between day 29 and day 56) then as long as you have never identified the driver and you had 'no keeper liability' in your argument, they are stuffed. If there was never a NTK posted to you (only a windscreen PCN) point that omission out to POPLA, it's a nice easy one for them.

- Secuitas Security Services (UK) Ltd are not the landowner, they are another layer of agents/third parties possibly authorised by the University but who knows because the proof that SSS are/aren't appointed agents of the landowner simply isn't there in that contract. It does not meet the requirements of the BPA CoP

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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.''


- It also talks about 'PCNs for 'offences' as 'described in paragraph 2 of this service specification' but they haven't provided paragraph 2. So those 'offences' (which they are not because this isn't a criminal matter) are unknown, could just be PCNs for disabled bay parking and nothing else, could be enforcement only on Saturdays - who knows? This page of the specification doesn't specify.

- what they are describing as 'clear and adequate signage' is hundreds of yards away and illegible. Impossible to know what those signs in the distance say and why is there no one nearer where the car was? How does a driver know in these bays that a permit is needed? The photos show no such obligation adequately signed there. The close up example of the sign (not shown as it is in the car park, it's only a stock sign picture) shows it is dark blue with tiny white writing. The site photos prove these signs are simply not 'prominent' nor in 'large lettering throughout the site' as was found in the Beavis case. There is no way a driver would be likely to have seen, read and consented to paying a charge from that unreadable sign in the far distance, after all the driver saw marked white parking bays having driven past a white/blue 'P' sign (indicating to the ordinary man that the area was free parking with no time constraints) and there are no pay & display machines, so what is there to draw a driver's attention to any restriction? Nothing.

- I can't see they have made any attempt whatsoever to justify the sum of the parking charge which is clearly a penalty unless they can demonstrate a legitimate interest giving them a right to charge a disproportionate sum. Have they not mentioned the Beavis case nor anything about the loss/GPEOL/how the sum was calculated or justified? I assume your appeal argued 'no loss/GPEOL and/or the situation differs from Beavis?


Please show us your appeal so we can compare and please tell us which sheet is missing here (PCN, NTK, justification/GPEOL?).

NotPayingThisNoWay

Thank you all for your quick responses! For some reason I'm not getting notifications when you guys post. I’ll just check this regularly instead.

1) There was another page, I've uploaded it onto the live link that Coupon-Mad so kindly provided (Photobucket). It's the one that has a big Red Star on the photo. I didn't initially upload that because it seemed useless. It’s pretty much a blank page except for the little writing at the top. But now all those photos are everything that they included in the evidence pack.
2) They did actually post an NTK, so I guess I won’t be able to use that argument?

My POPLA appeal was fairly long so I have now uploaded pictures of the document onto the photobucket link
(Apologies if it isn’t the best, but I tried my best to use the forum.. I figured I would make an attempt before creating a thread about it. Guess I needed you guys anyway!  )

POPLA did give me a 7 day period in which I have to comment on the evidence. This email was sent to me on the 4th of February. So I pretty much have about 2 days from now to respond to them..
I feel as though I’m running out of time, what are the next steps?

I hope I’ve responded with the correct info, if not – Please tell me so I can provide you with it

Thank you all for comments! I don’t feel so alone in this cruel car parking world.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's only a 9 page evidence pack with a cover sheet written by a girly, TOWIE-loving teenage level 1 BTEC student (look at the handwriting). You can beat this easily; it's really nothing to panic about.

A few observations:

- there are 8 pages there not nine. 'Tracey the trainee' has written 9 sheets on the cover sheet. So did you get 9 sheets? Is it the PCN that's missing? Was it in the evidence? it seems there was a NTK as well but haven't they even shown it? They have to show BOTH documents - and if either are missing, you can say to POPLA there can be no keeper liability as F1rst have not shown the PCN and/or NTK.

- if F1rst never issued a NTK (postal version between day 29 and day 56) then as long as you have never identified the driver and you had 'no keeper liability' in your argument, they are stuffed. If there was never a NTK posted to you (only a windscreen PCN) point that omission out to POPLA, it's a nice easy one for them.

- Secuitas Security Services (UK) Ltd are not the landowner, they are another layer of agents/third parties possibly authorised by the University but who knows because the proof that SSS are/aren't appointed agents of the landowner simply isn't there in that contract. It does not meet the requirements of the BPA CoP

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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.''


- It also talks about 'PCNs for 'offences' as 'described in paragraph 2 of this service specification' but they haven't provided paragraph 2. So those 'offences' (which they are not because this isn't a criminal matter) are unknown, could just be PCNs for disabled bay parking and nothing else, could be enforcement only on Saturdays - who knows? This page of the specification doesn't specify.

- what they are describing as 'clear and adequate signage' is hundreds of yards away and illegible. Impossible to know what those signs in the distance say and why is there no one nearer where the car was? How does a driver know in these bays that a permit is needed? The photos show no such obligation adequately signed there. The close up example of the sign (not shown as it is in the car park, it's only a stock sign picture) shows it is dark blue with tiny white writing. The site photos prove these signs are simply not 'prominent' nor in 'large lettering throughout the site' as was found in the Beavis case. There is no way a driver would be likely to have seen, read and consented to paying a charge from that unreadable sign in the far distance, after all the driver saw marked white parking bays having driven past a white/blue 'P' sign (indicating to the ordinary man that the area was free parking with no time constraints) and there are no pay & display machines, so what is there to draw a driver's attention to any restriction? Nothing.

- I can't see they have made any attempt whatsoever to justify the sum of the parking charge which is clearly a penalty unless they can demonstrate a legitimate interest giving them a right to charge a disproportionate sum. Have they not mentioned the Beavis case nor anything about the loss/GPEOL/how the sum was calculated or justified? I assume your appeal argued 'no loss/GPEOL and/or the situation differs from Beavis?


Please show us your appeal so we can compare and please tell us which sheet is missing here (PCN, NTK, justification/GPEOL?).

Redx

its definitely cruel how these bully boys operate, hence the backlash

so please ensure you have signed this petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925 and get as many others to do the same, we need to get it over the 10k mark for now

Coupon-mad

They did actually post an NTK, so I guess I won’t be able to use that argument?

Looks to me that they are stuffed. I see no PCN and no NTK in the evidence pack. Point that out to POPLA = no keeper liability, no evidence.

NotPayingThisNoWay

I've signed it and I'll spread the word!

Redx wrote: »

its definitely cruel how these bully boys operate, hence the backlash

so please ensure you have signed this petition and get as many others to do the same, we need to get it over the 10k mark for now

Coupon-Mad, just to summarise everything you and a few others suggested..
1) Signage suggests that the Parking event took place on land owned by 'University of Hertfordshire' yet the 'contract' is between F1rst Parking and Securitas Security Service

- Secuitas Security Services (UK) Ltd are not the landowner, they are another layer of agents/third parties possibly authorised by the University but who knows because the proof that SSS are/aren't appointed agents of the landowner simply isn't there in that contract. It does not meet the requirements of the BPA CoP

2) There is in fact no offer of parking except to permit holders so as the driver did not have a permit they could not have entered into a contract for parking & therefore cannot have breached the terms & conditions of that contract & rendered themselves liable for damages
3) F1rst have not shown the PCN and/or NTK in the evidence pack. BOTH Must be included and therefore there can be no keeper liability.
4) What they are describing as 'clear and adequate signage' is hundreds of yards away and illegible.

- It is Impossible to know what those signs in the distance say. Also why is there no one nearer to where the car was?
- How does a driver know in these bays that a permit is needed? The photos show no such obligation adequately signed there.
- The photos provided in the evidence pack are clearly taken in the light of day. The car could have easily been parked at night during hours which these 'parking rules' was INACTIVE.

a) I therefore deem these pictures as unworthy of evidence as it doesn't correctly showcase the scenario in which the car was parked.
b) I suggest F1rst take photographs during hours where there is no day light. eg. 1am. - And then try and claim that the signage was clear. (We will then able to see that the signage was in fact much harder to even SEE, let alone read)

- The close up example of the sign (not shown as it is in the car park, it's only a stock sign picture) shows it is dark blue with tiny white writing. The site photos prove these signs are simply not 'prominent' nor in 'large lettering throughout the site' as was found in the Beavis case. There is no way a driver would be likely to have seen, read and consented to paying a charge from that unreadable sign in the far distance, after all the driver saw marked white parking bays having driven past a white/blue 'P' sign (indicating to the ordinary man that the area was free parking with no time constraints)
- No direction or indication as to where the 'pay & display machines' are so what is there to draw a driver's attention to any restriction? Nothing.

5) No attempt has been made whatsoever to justify the sum of the parking charge which is clearly a penalty unless they can demonstrate a legitimate interest giving them a right to charge a disproportionate sum.

- F1rst have not mentioned the Beavis case nor anything about the loss/GPEOL/how the sum was calculated or justified?

These are the arguments that I will be making on the evidence pack. Just to confirm and finalize, Do I just log in to my POPLA account and comment those points? Or Is there anything I need to adjust or add to it?

If not, I'll go ahead and submit that.
Again thank you all for your help! :T

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks to me that they are stuffed. I see no PCN and no NTK in the evidence pack. Point that out to POPLA = no keeper liability, no evidence.

Coupon-mad

You may not be able to fit all that in on the POPLA Portal due to word count restriction. So I would email it to POPLA with the 10 digit POPLA code in the subject line and ask if they will please add your comments on this operator's lack of evidence to the case file. They will!

NotPayingThisNoWay

Just over a Month later, I just got this response from POPLA. My appeal has been rejected and I'm gutted. Not sure how else I could have appealed. I feel like I followed all the steps correctly. Can anyone shed some light on this appeal, I'm running out of hope.

Any suggestions and help is appreciated! I've attached the response which POPLA sent to me. It's in the photobucket link which Coupon-Mad provided. Heres the link below, replace the (dot) with an actual "."

s204(dot)photobucket(dot)com/user/tawf9494/media/F1rst%20Parking/Untitled.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Thank you

Dave_TH

live link

http://s204.photobucket.com/user/tawf9494/media/F1rst%20Parking/Untitled.png.html?sort=3&o=0