Parking Ticketing Limited

Coupon-mad

I would make it a bit shorter by removing the reminder of your 8 appeal points or POPLA will glance at it and think it's (not allowed) 'additional evidence' or an attempt at a second appeal (POPLA are terrible in this respect).

mrsunnybunny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would make it a bit shorter by removing the reminder of your 8 appeal points or POPLA will glance at it and think it's (not allowed) 'additional evidence' or an attempt at a second appeal (POPLA are terrible in this respect).

Thanks, I have edited accordingly. I will try and send a final version of the below of today:

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

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

The Operator has failed to provide evidence of their right to pursue charges
I refer to my appeal point 8, under which I explained that I believed the 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 {...} 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. It is noted that the document makes reference to the “client” and an “Area”, none of which are defined. The area is supposed to be detailed in schedule 1 of the document, which has not been provided. Therefore is it impossible to conclude that the Operator has any right to operate on the premises.

The Operator 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 (as explained in appeal points 5 and 8), rendering all demands unenforceable.

Comments in response to Section G of the case file
Applicability of POFA
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 (as per appeal point 1 of my appeal to POPLA). Therefore, POFA is in fact relevant to this case, but the Operator has failed to comply.

Signage and warning
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 {...} and {...} of the case file) which shows that the signage is barely readable. I ask that section {...} 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).

I also point to the fact that pictures {...} to {...} are dated {...}, more than 8 months before the alleged infringement. The pictures are not representative of the signage currently being displayed on the premises, as some of these pictures have since fallen down or been taken down. This would have made it even harder for an unsuspecting motorist to see and/or understand the signs.

Customer service number
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 {...} 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 an unsuspecting motorist would have no idea of what to do).

Display of permit
I further dispute the Operator’s claim that pictures {...}, {...} and {...} show that a permit was not clearly displayed. I point to my own evidence submitted as part of my appeal (Appendix 3) which shows that the relevant information was indeed visible. The pictures provided by the Operator were taken from an angle as to create the false impression of the permit not being visible. In particular, I point to the fact that the Operator does not mention that the full permit must be visible but only lists parking bay number, permit number, security feature and expiry date as the relevant details which need to be visible. All these features were clearly visible at the time of alleged infringement 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). The above is despite the fact that the actual signs do not specify how a permit should be displayed. The motorist, as evidenced by the photos, did display a permit in the windscreen.

Comments on Section E2 of the case file
The Notice of Intended Debt Recovery supplied in Section {...} of the case file shows that the notice was sent on {...}. As explained in point 6 of my appeal to POPLA, this was sent 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.

This concludes my comments on the Operator’s case file
Kind regards

Coupon-mad

Yes, I think you'll have to email that though which is always dodgy because we don't believe POPLA Assessors read emailed comments even when assurances are given by POPLA.

If you can cut it right down, as you are not including any photos, only text, I tend to think shorter comments within the Portal box (if still open for comments) is better and more likely to be read by the Assessor.

mrsunnybunny

I just lost what should have been a clear case.

This makes no sense at all. I have not received the NTK and while I appealed as the driver I still lost. PTL did not even provide proof that they could operate on the premises which I explained in detail and I lost! Further yet, POPLA explains that they did provide proof???!

!!!!!! is going on??????

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name: Lauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant states that vehicle belongs to a resident and a permit was displayed. The appellant says that the signage is inadequate and poorly lit. The appellant has questioned if the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued the parking charge as the appellant parked without displaying a permit. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the site. The photographs show that the appellant parked without a permit displayed in the windscreen. The appellant has provided photographs to show that the permit was displayed, however it fallen from the dashboard and was partially hidden. The appellant’s photographs show that the bay number could be seen on the permit. However, the images provided by the operator confirm that the permit was not clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state, “Vehicles parked in this area must park in the correct marked bay and clearly display a valid P.T.L permit in the windscreen”.

The appellant has stated that the signs are not well lit. However, from the photographs supplied by the operator it is clear the car park is lit and I am satisfied that the signs are clear. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states, “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I also consider that it is clear a permit must be clearly displayed at all times.

The appellant has stated that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA 2012. However, the operator has not sent a Notice to Keeper to the appellant. From the evidence, I am satisfied that the operator has not attempted to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. The operator is only pursuing the driver for the payment of the parking charge. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - I appealed as the keeper and clearly pointed out and explained the requirements of POFA

The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In this instance, the operator has provided a contract that confirms it has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charges on the land in question. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - PTL only provided generic T&Cs which made no references to the landowner. No proof was submitted as part of the evidence]

The appellant has raised a complaint regarding the operator passing the charge to a debt recovery agent. However, POPLA is an independent appeals service that assesses appeals based on the evidence supplied by both parties. POPLA considers if a motorist has complied with the terms and conditions of parking set out in the signage at the site. POPLA can only consider if a parking charge was issued correctly. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. I accept that the appellant is a permit holder, however this permit was not displayed at the time the parking charge was issued. Therefore, I conclude that the parking charge was issued correctly.

bod1467

Has POPLA considered your rebuttal of the operator evidence at all? If not then you may be able to complain about a Procedural Error.

mrsunnybunny

bod1467 wrote: »

Has POPLA considered your rebuttal of the operator evidence at all? If not then you may be able to complain about a Procedural Error.

It doesn't look like it. They have completely ignored my comments on their evidence.

In the comments submitted, I again explained that I was not the driver and a NTK was required. I also explained that the T&Cs were no proof of right to operate on the premises.

This was ignored in the decision.

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other silly ones, complain to POPLA first about procedural error (NTK not being served, a keeper appellant CANNOT be told by POPLA to pay). The driver has not been identified so the case should have been won - massive error by POPLA.

complaints@popla.co.uk

then contact ISPA to complain if POPLA do not re-assess it. Read frankietwospots' thread and Sixsix someone (all easy to find if you search the forum for the search term: complaints@popla.co.uk which finds those threads.

mrsunnybunny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Same as all the other silly ones, complain to POPLA first about procedural error (NTK not being served, a keeper appellant CANNOT be told by POPLA to pay). The driver has not been identified so the case should have been won - massive error by POPLA.

complaints@popla.co.uk

then contact ISPA to complain if POPLA do not re-assess it. Read frankietwospots' thread and Sixsix someone (all easy to find if you search the forum for the search term: complaints@popla.co.uk which finds those threads.

Thanks for all the help and references, really appreciate it.

Just wondering if any complaint to POPLA has ever been successful before I waste many more hours on this? I am so frustrated and tired of all this crap...

May just sent off the below quickly:

For the attention of Mr Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator,


Dear Mr Gallagher

I am writing to complain about two procedural errors on case: [...] and request POPLA to rehear the case.

Firstly, the assessor misinterpreted evidence submitted by the operator and subsequently ignored my subsequent rebuttal of such evidence :

The assessor states that the operator has provided evidence of written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. This is not the case, as explained in my rebuttal. The evidence provided by the operator are generic Terms and Conditions which do not constitute a contract as they make absolutely no reference to the premises and bear no signatures. The operator has NOT provided any evidence in respect of the premises in question.

Further procedural error occurred as the assessor failed to apply the relevant law (POFA) and cannot find a keeper liable without any Notice to Keeper ever being served. I expect a thorough investigation into this case.

I appealed as keeper of the vehicle in a case where no driver has been named by the Operator, with the primary point of no Notice to Keeper ever being sent. A point backed up by the Operator who stated themselves in the provided evidence that no Keeper was sent. Your assessor, Lauren Bailey, failed to apply the relevant law stated in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 and cannot find a keeper liable without any Notice to Keeper being served. Due to the absence of the document, the second condition for Keeper liability in law was not met.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Further yet, I explained that I was not the driver and even submitted evidence for this.

Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK. Thus in this situation, PTL have neither complied with, nor met the keeper liability requirements and thus there is no keeper liability.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, the POPLA Lead Adjudicator in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon following a full investigation of the reference stated above.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Yes a poster here got their case reheard and they then won, last week. And POPLA have only just started this new policy.

This was despite TWO Assessors looking at it and fobbing the appellant off:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5437508

Quite a saga this one, and very amusing because the appellant used the line 'are consumers supposed to be psychic?!

''Comments on the signage evidence are NOT new points, my appeal had raised ‘Unclear and Inadequate Signage’ as clear issue and the operator’s evidence failed. Are consumers supposed to be psychic and second-guess in advance what photographic evidence might appear in the case file? How is that possible? This was never the case under the old POPLA system and both parties under ‘old POPLA’ were perfectly entitled – and the Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade upheld it as a vital point of fairness – to comment on evidence.''

mrsunnybunny

I emailed the complaints on Monday and still haven't had a reply or any type of acknowledgement. In everyone else's experience, how long do they usually take to get back?

I am trying to see this as something positive in the hope that they are actually reading my email. Could however also be that it is simply being ignored