Parking Ticketing Limited

mrsunnybunny

Background:
I received a fine from Parking Ticketing Ltd (PTL). My car was parked in my underground parking bay of the apartment complex I live in. The complex is owned by a separate property management company. The property management company employed PLT to give out tickets for cars parked without permission.

My car was parked in its usual space for which I have a lease and right to park. Unfortunately, the disk slipped down a little bit and wasn't fully visible from the front of the car. That said, if you lent over the windscreen you could still clearly make out the permit and bay number. The photos which PTL took as evidence were purposely taken from an angle which makes it look as if the permit wasn't readable

---

UPDATE 1:
- property management company has not yet been successful cancelling charge although still trying
- no NTK received yet
- Appeal to PTL is rejected via email

---

UPDATE 2:
- Property management company has given up trying to cancel charge. Informs me maximum number of cancellations have been reached and ignores my complaints
- Still no NTK from PTL which must reach me by 16 June.
- I have now received threats of debt recovery agents, 2 weeks into POPLA appeals window

---

UPDATE 3:
- Still no NTK
- Appeal submitted to POPLA
- Awaiting outcome

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle [...] and am appealing a parking charge (Parking Charge Reference Number [...]) from Parking Ticketing Ltd (the “Operator”). I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability
2. Vehicle issued the PCN is considered to be a genuine resident and displayed the permit
3. Parking Ticketing Ltd is attempting to fine on invalid grounds
4. Inadequate signage or lighting, forming no contract with drivers
5. No contract can exist between Parking Ticketing Ltd and driver/keeper
6. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and POPLA procedures: Received threats of Debt Recovery Agents just 2 weeks into the POPLA appeal window
7. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and POPLA procedures: The operator adds various surcharges – Fees for Debt Recovery Agents prior during the appeals period, an illegal premium rate number on the PCN and the signage, and processing fees leading to a charge of over £100, exceeding the appropriate amount
8. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability

Attached to the window of the car was a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) addressed to the driver only. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement, which occurred on [date]. As proof that I cannot have been the driver of the vehicle, I attach a copy of a flight booking showing that I left the UK on [date] and only returned on [date] (see Appendix 1).

I further point to the fact that in my appeal to Parking Ticketing Ltd, I specifically stated that “I am the keeper but was not driving the vehicle”. Parking Ticketing Ltd therefore had full knowledge of the fact that I was not the driver of the vehicle, but consequently did not comply with the requirements as I explain below.

To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by Parking Ticketing Ltd. As only a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, a 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).

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

The alleged infringement occurred on [date] and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by [date]. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

Relevant details of PoFA 2012, Schedule 4 are provided for your reference here:

''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.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8...
(2)If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 8.
8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph
6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.''

2. Vehicle issued the PCN is considered to be a genuine resident and displayed the permit

With regards to the Parking Charge Notice, the vehicle in question was in possession of a valid permit at the time of alleged infringement. The vehicle was parked in the same space for several month without any issues. As shown by the photo in Appendix 2, the parking permit was displayed on the windscreen and both permit number and bay number were clearly visible.

Further supporting the above are the photos taken by Parking Ticketing Ltd which I can access through their website. I note Parking Ticketing Ltd have taken [...] photos with the following date and time stamps: [...]

I put Parking Ticketing Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA with copies of these [...] photos. At least [...] of these photos show that the permit was in fact displayed in the windscreen at the time of alleged infringement.

With regards to the above it is clear that Parking Ticketing Ltd’s photos were purposely taken from an angle as to create the impression that the permit was not clearly visible. I therefore attach a side-by-side comparison of one of the photos provided by Parking Ticketing Ltd and my own photo of the permit in the vehicle taken from a different angle as it was left at the time of alleged infringement (see Appendix 3). This clearly demonstrates that a valid permit (including permit number and bay number) was visibly displayed in the windscreen at the time of alleged infringement, and the vehicle was in full compliance with the rules which Parking Ticketing Ltd is trying to enforce (but has no right to do so, as I challenge in appeal points 4, 5 and 8).

I further point to the wording on the signs (see Appendix 10), in case Parking Ticketing Ltd tries to argue that the permit was displayed incorrectly. The signs do not specify how or where the permit should be positioned in the windscreen. As evidenced by both my own and Parking Ticketing Ltd’s photos, a valid permit was in fact displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle, and the vehicle was in full compliance with the rules as per the wording on the signs (even though the signs themselves are not valid as I challenge in appeal points 4, 5 and 8).

The reason land owners employ parking companies are to stop non-residents abusing the car park in question. Genuine residents should not be deterred from using the parking spaces provided to their properties for which they hold a lease, especially not when a permit is displayed.

 
3. Parking Ticketing Ltd is attempting to fine on invalid grounds

As explained on the PCN left on the vehicle, Parking Ticketing Ltd is attempting to fine me on the grounds of an “Invalid Permit” (see Appendix 11).

As per appeal point 2 presented above, I again point to the fact that I am in possession of such a permit (see Appendix 6), and this permit was in fact displayed in the windscreen at the time of alleged infringement (as discussed under appeal point 2 above, and as evidenced in Appendices 2 and 3).

Based on the above, Parking Ticketing Ltd has provided invalid grounds for the alleged infringement and the fine therefore cannot be valid on the grounds specified on the PCN. Therefore, the PCN itself cannot be valid.

 
4. Inadequate signage or lighting, forming no contract with drivers

The only notices are up on walls, away from the light sources in the car park area, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. The residential car park in which the parking bay is located is generally very dark and no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Any photos supplied by Parking Ticketing Ltd to POPLA will no doubt show the signage with the misleading aid of a close up camera with an extremely bright flash and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the Parking Ticketing Ltd signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this residential car park. It is noted that the pillar next to which the car is parked does not display any notices by Parking Ticketing Ltd, as evidenced by the photo in Appendix 4.

As such, I require Parking Ticketing Ltd 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 without photo-shopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding a resident without the help of external lighting such as a camera flash or torch.

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. 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.

Notwithstanding the above, I further point to the fact that Parking Ticketing Ltd’s signs ask for a valid “P.T.L permit” to be displayed (see Appendix 10). It is not clear what a “P.T.L permit” is as this term has not been defined on any sign or document provided to residents. This alone should be sufficient to conclude that the requirements for forming a contract were not satisfied.

No contract can have been formed between the driver and Parking Ticketing Ltd because the signage is inadequate, unlit and the “charge” is not clearly displayed in large lettering. The ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis is irrelevant in this case as the parking spaces are for the enjoyment of the residents, and are not offered as spaces for public parking. A vehicle parking in his own dedicated is not depriving any other resident of their allotted parking space. Parking Eye v Beavis is only relevant to a public car park with a high turnover of public vehicles.

 
5. No contract can exist between Parking Ticketing Ltd and driver/keeper

Please see the agreement by which I rent this parking bay (see Appendix 5). It is clear from this document that I am the lawful occupier of the land and I need no third party's permission to park a vehicle there or to permit a vehicle to be so parked. The agreement specifically provides me with “unrestricted and exclusive use of the parking space”.

Parking Ticketing Ltd's signs therefore offer nothing of value to me or to anyone to whom I give permission to park in the bay: such a driver already has the right to park there. Accordingly Parking Ticketing Ltd has offered no consideration, no contract can exist between Parking Ticketing Ltd and such driver or the keeper of the vehicle, and this charge is baseless.

Neither the permit itself (see Appendix 6) nor the rental agreement which the resident signed warned or mentions any restrictions or the amount of any parking charge nor drew attention to any further terms which could apply to the contract. It is too late to bring other terms into a contract (not even those on a sign) if these terms were not part of the agreement made at the time of the permit being provided. In fact, at the time when the rental agreement was signed, no restrictions applied on the premises. Parking Ticketing Ltd was not operating on the premises and had no contract with the landowner. The residents had no idea that a 'fine' of £100 could possibly apply. You will note that the rental agreement for my parking bay was concluded on [date] (see Appendix 5), which pre-dates any site agreement the Operator may have entered into, a copy of which I also request as part of appeal point 8.

In any case, even if POPLA consider signage to be relevant in this instance, the driver was not adequately informed of the terms nor warned 'prominently in large letters' of the actual sum of the parking charge anywhere, which fails 2(3) of Schedule 4 outright (see appeal point 4 above).

 
6. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and POPLA procedures: Received threats of Debt Recovery Agents just 2 weeks into the POPLA appeal window

Please refer to the Notice of Indented Debt Recovery, a copy of which is presented in Appendix 7. Parking Ticketing Ltd provided me with the POPLA appeal reference on [date] (see Appendix 8). As the Notice of Indented Debt Recovery was dated 9 June 2016, Parking Ticketing Ltd sent threats of Debt Recovery Agents just 2 weeks into the POPLA appeal window.

This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice as well as the POPLA procedures which stipulate that BPA Members must 'stop work' during appeal windows. Parking Ticketing Ltd therefore is in contravention of both BPA Code of Practice as well as the POPLA procedures, rendering all demands unenforceable.

 
7. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice and POPLA procedures: The operator adds various surcharges – Fees for Debt Recovery Agents prior during the appeals period, an illegal premium rate number on the PCN and the signage, and processing fees leading to a charge of over £100, exceeding the appropriate amount

As discussed in appeal point 6 above, Parking Ticketing Ltd threatens of Debt Recovery Agents 2 weeks into the POPLA appeals window, and states that additional charges be added to the £100 if payment is not received by [date] (which is well within the appeals period) (see Appendix 7).

Additionally, all debit and credit card payment to Parking Ticketing Ltd attract an admin fee (see evidence provided in Appendix 9).

Further, Parking Ticketing Ltd only provides illegal premium rate numbers on both the PCN and the signage, allegedly where the contract is 'formed', (see Appendix 10 and Appendix 11) rendering all demands unenforceable.

Adding a blanket ‘admin fee’ for all card payments is an illegal surcharge and so this ‘charge’ exceeds the arguably ‘appropriate’ amount:

a) The maximum ceiling in the BPA Code of Practice is £100. There are neither grounds nor justification under the CoP or the applicable law, to add any extra processing costs. As far as the BPA Code is concerned, this rule exists for the obvious reason that any Operator could circumvent the BPA '£100 maximum' every time, otherwise - and where would the line be drawn?
b) It is also noted that the signage suggests they can add costs for getting keeper details from the DVLA but they cannot charge extra for this, which is a normal part of processing any private PCN. £100 is the maximum PCN for a BPA AOS member. Therefore the phrase "non-payment of the parking charge will result in further costs by way of the keeper's details being requested from DVLA and of enforcement" which is displayed on the signage is misleading and against regulations.
c) Charging £1.50 fee for ‘all’ card payments including debit cards is banned under statute, in the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 explained here: gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452405/BIS-15-343-BIS-payment-surcharges-guidance.pdf
d) I do not believe it costs £1.50 for a debit card payment; explained here in an MSE article from 2013: moneysavingexpert.com/news/cards/2013/04/credit-and-debit-card-fee-clampdown-begins
‘’While transaction processing costs vary by provider, consumer group ‘Which?’ has previously said it believes retailers pay no more than 20p for debit card transactions.’’
e) An illegal premium rate number on the PCN and the signage (allegedly where the contract is 'formed') renders this demand unenforceable: callcentrehelper.com/a-quick-guide-to-the-0845-and-0870-number-changes-43473.htm
This is also a specific breach of the BPA CoP 18.7: ''If you provide a telephone line to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate.''
For the avoidance of doubt, any number starting 070, 084, 087 or 09 is clearly 'premium rate'. A 'basic rate' number is one starting 01, 02, 03 or 080.

Under the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 the only amount which can be (potentially) sought from a registered keeper is the amount of any outstanding parking charges as stated on a compliant and properly given NTK. There is no provision to recover any additional costs if not stated on a NTK and there is no provision to recover anything at all from a keeper, in cases where the Operator fails to serve any NTK (see NTK appeal point in 1 above).

Parking Ticketing Ltd therefore is in contravention of both BPA Code of Practice, rendering all demands unenforceable.


8. 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, Parking Ticketing 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 Parking Ticketing Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Ticketing 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 Parking Ticketing Ltd.
Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“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”.

Section 7.3 states:

“The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I do not believe that this Operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay Parking Ticketing Ltd.

I put Parking Ticketing Ltd to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,
[name]


Appendix 1: Flight Booking
Appendix 2: Photo of parking permit in windscreen at time of alleged infringement
Appendix 3: Comparison: photo of parking permit in windscreen at time of alleged infringement versus Parking Ticketing Ltd's photo taken from an angle as to create the impression that the permit was not visible
Appendix 4: Pillar next to car
Appendix 5: Agreement by which I rent this parking bay
Appendix 6: Vehicle permit
Appendix 7: Notice of Indented Debt Recovery, sent 9 June 2016
Appendix 8: Parking Ticketing Ltd appeal rejection
Appendix 9: Admin fees for debit and credit card payments (as per Parking Ticketing Ltd's website)
Appendix 10: Signs, including premium rate numbers
Appendix 11: Parking Charge Notice left on the vehicle

---

UPDATE 4:
PTL has responded to the POPLA appeal, providing a bunch of "evidence". Part of their response was the below letter in which they claim that POFA is not applicable. They also suggest that the motorist would have had sufficient warning, despite my declaration of not being the driver. Importantly, they have failed to provide evidence that they have a contract to operate on the premises - only a generic page with T&C but without a definition of client and premises was supplied.

Currently drafting my comments to POPLA.

---

UPDATE 5:

LOST WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CLEAR WIN
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70962197#Comment_70962197

pappa_golf

ticket on car = 28 days before they can ask DVLA for your data , must be received by you between 28-56 days after offence

mrsunnybunny

Thanks. So I guess the best I can do right now is the pester the property management company to see if they can get it cancelled, and otherwise wait and see if I receive anything within 56 days (as if not then all is good in any case)?

pappa_golf

pester the management Co , show them YOUR photos , your lease or right to park trump a 2 bit parking company


https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203631441-Parking-Ticketing-Ltd

mrsunnybunny

pappa_golf wrote: »

pester the management Co , show them YOUR photos , your lease or right to park trump a 2 bit parking company


https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203631441-Parking-Ticketing-Ltd

Thanks, that's helpful. Should I also send in the standard appeal as the keeper via email? Right now, I am still on day 27 and tomorrow will be day 28.

pappa_golf

email it this evening , the blue one from the newbies thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822


do not add or alter it , do not mention your pass beingh visible , await a popla code and a NTK or not , return when received




that needs doing tonight!


http://www.parkingticketing.co.uk/index.php/contact-us.html


or http://www.ptlappeals.co.uk/parking-ticket-appeal




as the KEEPER not the driver

mrsunnybunny

pappa_golf wrote: »

email it this evening , the blue one from the newbies thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822


do not add or alter it , do not mention your pass beingh visible , await a popla code and a NTK or not , return when received




that needs doing tonight!


http://www.parkingticketing.co.uk/index.php/contact-us.html


or http://www.ptlappeals.co.uk/parking-ticket-appeal




as the KEEPER not the driver

Got it; by filling out this form (http://www.ptlappeals.co.uk/parking-ticket-appeal), they will have my address. Is that fine?

Also, just to make sure, I will select "I am the keeper but was not driving the vehicle"

pappa_golf

Also, just to make sure, I will select "I am the keeper but was not driving the vehicle"






correct , I sorted that out for you with the BPA


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5465262




every little helps ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

mrsunnybunny

pappa_golf wrote: »

Also, just to make sure, I will select "I am the keeper but was not driving the vehicle"






correct , I sorted that out for you with the BPA


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5465262




every little helps ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Thanks for all the help!

Appeal is submitted using web-form, I will pester the management company tomorrow and I shall update this thread with any news!

pappa_golf

hopefully as you have appealed as the keeper they will forget to send a NTK ,,

Guys_Dad

The key to this is the wording on the signs and your photo showing the permit is visible.

Given that the only person who would be inconvenienced by someone else in your bay would be you yourself, you should walk this iv they were idiotic enough to try court.