F1rst Parking PCN - wait for NTK?

adginald

Are there any ticket machines nearby?

I confess I'm not sure, I'm remote from the site at present. I believe that you are right: the pay-and-display parts are at different parking areas on the campus than this one, hence the use of the phrase "designated Pay and Display locations". The University regulations state:

All general visitors who do not meet the criteria for a permit must park in the pay and display car parks

so there must be some somewhere.

But remember, this car did have a permit, but apparently not valid for this area. My main objection is that the area was not identified on the sign.

pappa_golf

correct , you had a currant valid permit, the sign does not state it has to be for that area

Coupon-mad

pappa_golf wrote: »

correct , you had a currant valid permit, the sign does not state it has to be for that area

Is that a RAISIN not to pay?!

(I'll get my coat...)

adginald

So I've taken StaffsSW's advice, and am waiting for the NtK. We're well past 28 days from the event, now.

Nobody's passed any comment on the parking envelope words, In contravention of the BPA guidelines. I have a picture here (once again, sorry about the non-clickable links):
i.imgur.com/FOkZV3t.jpg

Is this further grounds? Or is the BPA code only "guidelines"?

bod1467

Whilst POPLA wins can be made for breaches of the BPA CoP, the CoP is generally like the Pirate's Code.

That envelope (clicky) could be grounds for reporting the PPC to Trading Standards as it is emulating the packaging of a penalty notice. What offence do the PPC think would be committed by someone removing that envelope?

adginald

What offence do the PPC think would be committed by someone removing that envelope?

Perhaps they use it as "evidence" that you were the driver if you respond to the NtD?

I have seen here POPLA wins because of not meeting BPA sign dimensions, so perhaps there is hope that they look on the BPA code as more than guidelines.

Anyway, it can do no harm to add it to the bucket. I have often been pleasantly surprised by some of the POPLA wins where the investigator has fixed on the part you might think stood the least chance, agreed with it, and promptly declared "nothing else need be said". Good news, of course, but perhaps just a little frustrating after you've spent all your energy finding bulletproof arguments elsewhere!

Umkomaas

Perhaps they use it as "evidence" that you were the driver if you respond to the NtD?

They should only do this if the response was phrased 'I was the driver ........' But they will likely plough on regardless.

Ordinarily POPLA should uphold the appeal if the PPC was pursuing the keeper on the grounds that the he/she was the driver, especially without any PPC evidence, but their pattern of crazy decisions has, in some instances, drifted into determining the keeper was the driver, purely on the say-so of the PPC.

A keeper can quite legitimately respond to a NtD on the basis that the driver handed the ticket to them to deal with when returning the car after their kind loan of it! :cool:

adginald

A keeper can quite legitimately respond to a NtD on the basis that the driver handed the ticket to them to deal with when returning the car after their kind loan of it! :cool:

..while wearing a full disguise, so that the RK has no knowledge of who the driver is, natch

Umkomaas

adginald wrote: »

..while wearing a full disguise, so that the RK has no knowledge of who the driver is, natch

Even if the keeper knows full well who the driver was, there is no legal or moral responsibility to give that information to a PPC.

adginald

Well, StaffsSW, I guess F1rst have tightened up their timings, because the NtK arrived well inside the 56-day limit. I have a redacted copy here:

http://i.imgur.com/xOHsp8L.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8a2kZ33.jpg

The NtK is clearly non-compliant with POFA 2012, for example note that there is no "period of parking", just "date of event", like the NtD. I invite board members to play "non-compliance bingo" and see how many they can find

So I have to appeal to them and probably POPLA, as the RK. Recall that this case is that the car had a valid, current permit, but allegedly for a different area. The signage is identical for both the allowed and non-allowed areas, so an argument of unclear signage seems unarguable.

My question is this. The newbies template appeal letter (blue text) is brief and to the point, and is clearly designed to simply trigger the POPLA code. It seems to surmise that it is unlikely that the PPC would accept any appeal, and so let's not bother, and get to POPLA as soon as possible. It's hard to imagine that many PPCs would fold as a result of this template, although I believe it has happened, perhaps where they recognize a feisty opponent and don't want to incur POPLA costs.

But in this case there is a valid case for appeal, and so I am minded to increase the chances that F1rst will cancel before POPLA. Two years ago I got a cancellation at the PPC appeal stage from Horizon Parking by using the (then, pre-Beavis) MSE recommendations, and the case wasn't nearly as strong as this one.

Here were my original thoughts about the appeal:

1. The car had a permit for a certain area, and it wasn't stated on the signs which area this was. Indeed, the signs for this area and a known permitted area are identical. Anecdotally, it appears people should simply "know" which areas their permit allows. But the BPA says "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." So wrong, unclear or misleading signage seems undeniable.
2. The NTD was placed in an envelope emblazoned with "Warning: It is an offence for any person other than the driver to remove this notice", in contravention of BPA section 20.5c
3. The NTD is non-compliant with POFA 2012, as the "period of parking" is not specified, just the "date and time of event". The latter, being a single instant, does not give any information as to whether the driver was given enough time to consider the contract. BPA section 18.5 reads: "If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract."
4. £75 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss (this is a University car park)
5. No authority to issue parking notices.

(Note: those were just my thoughts at the time, I don't intend putting those words verbatim in the appeal. Also, I'd add points about the non-compliant NtK.) I feel this approach would also have the advantage of extracting their intended defence, should it have to go to POPLA.

So what would the board members recommend? Appeal it using the above points (please feel free to suggest additions or removals), possibly increasing my chances of appeal-stage cancellation, or get more insight into their rejection? Or should I not be so naive, accept that the PPC are going to reject, use the blue text and instead keep my powder dry for POPLA?