Popla help - private road, not carpark(

pinky1984

fruitcake, is this the bit I should amend and add in?

"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, Premier Park Ltd 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 Premier Park Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Premier Park Ltd 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 Premier Park Ltd."

System

It sounds like i should remove the GPEOL bit, and focus on the signage, as I can't see how the case is different to that of the Bevis case, is that right?

#2 (GPEOL) is out and #3 (permission to be at the site) you leave in.

Your case is different from Beavis in that he formed a contract with ParkingEye. In your case as the signs were not clear as to which area the contract applied to, then you did not have a contract.

Clarity of the signs and the areas to which they apply are core. Otherwise contra proferentem should apply. A "reasonable person" armed with the facts would assume this site was unrestricted highway and not subject to the restrictions as the signs were on the other side of the road on a piece of land quite different and distinct from the bit you parked on. Leave no room for an adjudicator to bounce you into the "Beavis" trap.

pinky1984

Okay so this? Or am I now missing a point? Thanks all for your help thus far, it's massively appreciated

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

As a law abiding citizen who always pays her 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 on a site which was unclearly marked as private land.

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

1. Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
The only notices are on the left hand side of the site as you enter from Bridge Street on a raised area away from the area my vehicle was parked, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. At the time of the alleged contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Any photos supplied by UKPC to POPLA will no doubt show the signage in with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is, evidence submitted by myself displays the signs at a least 7 feet above street level, making them unreadable from the street. As such, I require UKPC to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day as the contravention without photo-shopping or cropping and showing where the signs.

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. As the signs are placed only on the left hand side of the road, this would force the driver to turn away from viewing the road ahead in order to read the signs.

The site in question has no clear, signage, readable from ground level to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. Please see attached evidence below, I have gathered as proof. This contradicts the wording on the PCN which states the signage is ‘clearly and prominently displayed’. Please see the attached evidence.

Photo 1: shows the parking signs, these are situated on the left hand side of the site (not the right as the vehicle was parked) and away from the site of the vehcicle deeming it reasonable to assume the signs related in fact to the grey area outside the building. They also do not state where the restrictions begin and end.
Photo 2: also shows the parking sign, which is impossible to read from standing height as they are 8-10 feet above ground level.
Photo 3: shows the part of the site the vehicle was parked, my vehicle was located in the middle section of these two cars, where there are no lines on the road, and no signage, making it reasonable to assume that normal highway rules applied, and this was a place which carried no parking restrictions.
Photos 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: are taken from the UKPC website. Even in these pictures you can see the car is located away from the signage, and that the signage is not readable in these photos. Furthermore it clearly displays my vehicle parked on the side of the site with no signage, and in an area with no road markings.

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.

A "reasonable person" armed with the facts would assume this site was unrestricted highway and not subject to the restrictions as the signs were on the other side of the road on a piece of land quite different and distinct from site on which my vehicle was parked.

2. 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, UKPC 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 UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC 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 UKPC.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

{Name of Keeper}

Coupon-mad

Okay so this? Or am I now missing a point?

Missing 'no keeper liability' which was the entire point of appealing as keeper! Gobsmacked how many people do not realise that and follow what the NEWBIES thread says but then not carry on the obvious conclusion (no keeper liability) to POPLA stage. Why not just appeal as driver then??!

I appealed as the keeper but after about 10 days, so I didn't wait for the NTK to come, can I still appeal on the grounds of POFA 2012 compliant NTK?

Of course...that was why you did it. To distract them with an appeal from the keeper and to make them forget the NTK altogether.

You need the wording shown here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5443819

We also know that POPLA are so very awful right now that you need to quote not only the POFA in the keeper liability point but also section 7.3 of the BPA CoP in the 'unclear signage' point (like in the link, as shown). Lack of details from 7.3 in evidence to POPLA, won a case last week.

Spell the law and CoP out to the new POPLA Assessors, several of whom have shown us that they have been so woefully trained it is scandalous. They need to have it drummed into them that a missing NTK is fatal because it fails the 'second condition for keeper liability'. End of case, you win...that is how it should be, but look, a cautionary tale of a terrible POPLA decision:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70476729#Comment_70476729

Nononono!

Robert Harrison, POPLA Assessor, I hope you personally Google this and complain to POPLA about your lack of training. This is without a shadow of a doubt, WRONG. POPLA has failed you if they have not trained you on the applicable law. Read Schedule 4 - you got it wrong.

That is so AWFUL because it errs in law, POPLA may as well give the appeals to a rabbit to decide who wins or not, by whether they chew the appeal paperwork on the left (PPC win) or right (PPC lose). Or get a 5 year old to point to the word 'win' or 'lose'. It would be just as reliable right now as POPLA. I am not particularly blaming the Assessors; more than one have shown us without a doubt that they have not been properly trained in the POFA Schedule 4 or have been left to their own devices to interpret it.

But it is the statute on keeper liability and NTKs are mandatory, to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Lay that on with a trowel.

pinky1984

Can I check I have the facts right?

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 UKPC. 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).

So the PCN was issued on the 20th Feb, and the deadline for the Popla appeal is the 19th April.

So the NTK should arrive between 18th March and 15th April - so I should pause and not appeal until the 18th April to use the NTK clause, and assume it won't arrive in the next couple of days?

Can you confirm the wording of the appeal letter on the photo below doesn't form the NTK? I just want to double check I'm no shooting myself in the foot. I thought I'd done my initial appeal too soon to be able to use the NTK clause.

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/vpjh1j/9

I am assuming so as this is what's outlined in other threads, I just want to double check.

Thanks all. I'll take another look tonight and come up with a final version with all your feedback taken into account. You are all wonderful people.

pinky1984

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to say a massive thank you for all the help and advice. The appeal was upheld in my favour.

beamerguy

pinky1984 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to say a massive thank you for all the help and advice. The appeal was upheld in my favour.

Well done :T

Another failure for UKPC .... love it:rotfl:

Umkomaas

I read and commented in your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky before I followed your link to this original thread. In view of the history to parking issues in Spinningfields and the (then) involvement of the infamous ANPR Ltd, it could well be possible that there's some dodgy 'contracting' there.

Every more reason now to fire off a complaint to the DVLA/BPA and ask them to investigate and let you know the outcome.

UKPC is not a stranger to 'dodgy'!

Coupon-mad

pinky1984 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to say a massive thank you for all the help and advice. The appeal was upheld in my favour.

Nice result!