Parking Ticketing Limited

mrsunnybunny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Make sure you tick 'other' on the POPLA page (no other boxes offered, even though stupid POPLA say you are less likely to win using 'other' because we believe the BPA told them to say that). Attach all your evidence and the appeal PDF, one by one, uploading them and double checking each one appears as a 'packet' icon as you go. Double check MAINLY that the appeal PDF is the first one attached, to be sure you have included it.

The website is odd. I sent 3 appeals last night for a friend and still grappled with the stupid webpage I had used hundreds of times before.:)

Still a bit confused!

Under Step 1: Why are you appealing your parking charge?, it states: "You may select more than one reason for appealing your parking charge. You may be required to provide evidence to support your case, so we recommend you only select genuine grounds for appeal. Most successful parking appeals are made on the following four grounds."

In my case, should I select all of the following three, or just "other"?
1. I was not improperly parked
2. I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.
3. Other

Also, maximum number of files uploaded is 9. I have 11 appendices so I have just created a single pdf file which includes the appeal and all appendices (clearly labelled and referenced. Do you think this is fine?


On the POPLA page, I will say the following under Please explain your reasons for appealing against the parking ticket.:

Please see detailed reasons as outlined in the attached document "POPLA Appeal.pdf". Kindly also note the appendices referenced and explained within this document which provide supporting evidence.

Coupon-mad

In my case, should I select all of the following three, or just "other"?

Already told you:

Make sure you tick 'other' on the POPLA page (no other boxes).

Also, maximum number of files uploaded is 9. I have 11 appendices so I have just created a single pdf file which includes the appeal and all appendices (clearly labelled and referenced. Do you think this is fine?

Yes, sounds fine.

On the POPLA page, I will say the following under Please explain your reasons for appealing against the parking ticket.:

Please see detailed reasons as outlined in the attached document "POPLA Appeal.pdf". Kindly also note the appendices referenced and explained within this document which provide supporting evidence.

Yep that's how I do it too.

mrsunnybunny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Already told you:
Yes, sounds fine.
Yep that's how I do it too.

Thanks! Most helpful.

Appeal has been submitted and I will keep updating this thread for any news. I have made some more minor edits to the submission (see first post) and also added some new points and sub-points to test the waters, in case anyone wants to try the points as part of their own submission

1. New appeal point; see 3. Parking Ticketing Ltd is attempting to fine on invalid grounds
2. Under point 4, added: "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."
3. New appeal point; see 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
4. Under point 2, added: "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)."
5. Under point 1, added clarification "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."

mrsunnybunny

On the POPLA track appeals website, can anyone tell me what "Operator Information and Evidence In Progress" means? Does it mean they are waiting for PTL to submit their evidence? Also, how long do they have?

Coupon-mad

They have 21 days approx. You do not have to check the Portal on the off-chance of an update.

POPLA should email you when they see the evidence and you will then receive it yourself from the PPC, within days (if not, email POPLA back and ask for an extension to comment on the evidence if they see it but you don't, within a couple of days).

mrsunnybunny

Update: PTL has now submitted evidence to POPLA and I have 7 days to respond.

In summary, I made the following points in my appeal to POPLA:
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

I also requested the following information:
1. Copy of all photos of the car provided on the website
2. I have asked for photos of the signs as evidence, stating the height, etc
3. Copy of contract between PTL and the landowner

In the appeal, PTL provided the following:
1. A strange evidence checklist which I don't really understand. Notably, the Registered Keeper details and liability trail is unchecked
2. A generic picture of the warning sign, not taken at the premises
3. Generic Terms and Conditions on a single page, not even containing any signatures, the name of the location or any counterparty
4. A digital copy of the PTK
5. A copy of my appeal to PTL (generic one from newbies threat, didn't admit anything)
6. A copy of their rejection of my appeal
7. A copy of the Notice of Intended Debt Recovery with date, showing that it was sent during appeals period
8. A document referring a supreme court decision and stating that they do not enter into multiple appeals
9. Pictures of the car, as per website
10. Pictures of a few warning signs in the parking area, TAKEN 8 MONTHS AGO. Also the sign at the entrance as shown on the photo is tiny
11. A letter (copy below)
12. Reference to Parking Eye and Barry Beavis, stating that the charge is reasonable




Importantly, they have failed to provide evidence that they have a contract to operate on the premises. The letter (see above) stating that an NTK was not needed leaves me fuming. They further mention the number on the sign which is a premium number, what a bunch of ...!

Any feedback on how to get back to POPLA would be much appreciated.

Umkomaas

From the penultimate paragraph of their letter:

the motorist is a keeper of the vehicle therefore POFA is not relevant

Is that what TPL is saying? Makes no sense. The keeper can only be held liable if all the requirements of PoFA are met.

mrsunnybunny

Umkomaas wrote: »

From the penultimate paragraph of their letter:



Is that what TPL is saying? Makes no sense. The keeper can only be held liable if all the requirements of PoFA are met.

Yes...Absolutely ridiculous. Has anyone come across this claim before?

Umkomaas

mrsunnybunny wrote: »

Yes...Absolutely ridiculous. Has anyone come across this claim before?

You must point this out strongly to POPLA. They seem to have no idea how PoFA works - obvious from their interpretation, so press hard the points you raised in your POPLA appeal about no keeper liability.

mrsunnybunny

Here's my draft response to the case file, any comments welcome :-)

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to provide comments on Parking Ticketing Ltd’s (the “Operator”) case file.

For reference, I submitted my appeal based on the following points.
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

Failure to provide evidence of right to pursue charges
I refer to my appeal point 8, under which I explained that I believed that this Operator had no right to pursue charges on the premises. As part of the appeal point, I requested the Operator to provide strict proof to POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Ticketing Ltd and the landowner.

It is noted that the Operator only provided generic Terms and Conditions as part of section B2 of their case file. These Terms and Conditions do not constitute a legal document, make no reference to the premises or location, have no date, bear no signatures and provide absolutely no proof that any rights have been assigned to the Operator in respect of these premises at all.

The Operator therefore has failed to provide any evidence of a site agreement which confirms that the necessary rights have been not been assigned to the Operator. As such, no contract can exist between the Operator and the driver/keeper (also see appeal points 5 and 8).

In response to Section G of the case file
It is noted that in Section G of the case file, the Operator claims that POFA is not relevant to this case as “the motorist is a keeper of the vehicle”. I dispute this claim as I clearly declared that I was not the driver and even supplied evidence for this to have been the case (also see my appeal to the Operator in Section E of the case file). I point to the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a Notice to Keeper compliant with certain provisions. This operator has failed to serve any Notice to Keeper at all and there can be no keeper liability (for details refer to Point 1 of my appeal to POPLA). Therefore, POFA is in fact relevant to this case, but the Operator has failed to comply.

In the same Section G of the case file, the operator further claims that the motorist and “had plenty of warnings and time to put the permit in the windscreen correctly” due to the signs having been installed in 2015. Again, I point to my declaration of not being the driver of the vehicle. The actual driver would have had no advance notice or warning as the signage is inadequate (see my appeal point 4). This is supported by the Operator’s own submission (see Section F7 and F9 of the case file) which shows that the signage is barely readable. I ask that section B1 of the operator’s case file be disregarded as it shows a generic warning sign without a location code (ie this picture of the warning sign was not taken on the premises).

The operator suggests that the motorist should have phoned the customer service number on the warning sign. I refer to my appeal point 7, which explains that the use of a premium number is unlawful. The operator’s own evidence further supports my case. Further, it is noted that the Operator is contradicting himself. In Section G it is suggested that the motorist should have called the premium number, yet in Section G1 it is claimed that the signage is clear and such action is not necessary. Notwithstanding the fact that the Operator is in breach of CoP by providing only a premium number, I point to my appeal point 4 in which I explain that the signs are not clear (eg it is unclear what a P.T.L permit is, and a motorist would have no idea).

I further dispute the Operator’s claim that pictures F2, F3 and F4 show that a permit was not clearly displayed. I point to my own evidence submitted as part of my appeal (and for reference shown overleaf) which shows that the relevant information was indeed visible. In particular, I point to the fact that the Operator lists parking bay number, permit number, security feature and expiry date as the relevant details. All these features were clearly visible as evidenced by my photo (I need to point out that the permit does not feature an expiry date as suggested by the Operator, otherwise irrelevant to this appeal).