We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
CPP Liberty printers- Hospital Staff - Not in marked bay
thracian
Posts: 11 Forumite
Hi All,
Myself (and several colleagues) recently received postal notice to keepers for our vehicles parked in a particular space in a hospital staff car park.
Staff permits in place, paid for etc.
There are a LOT of commonly used perfectly appropriate spaces to park in staff car parks that are technically not marked bays, and several car parks that have no marked bays at all, yet for some reason, this space in this car park seems to be being ticketed.
Postal NtK looks broadly ok, other than lack of period as mentioned in the text below.
Not sure whether to go with a soft appeal and then expect POPLA (to make them pay) or a proper first appeal just to make the problem go away without the hassle.
A proper appeal may be worth the effort as CPP may pass appeals onto the hospital potentially for them to be reviewed/cancelled if they fit certain criteria.
Date
Dear Sirs
Re: PCN No. ....................
“Not Within Bay Markings”
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.
Firstly, and most importantly, I believe that you are not proceeding in an “fair” manner – the hospital site has a great many cars that are not parked in marked bays.
As there are hundreds of unmarked parking bays across the site, your suggestion that whilst they are permissible, another is not, is farcical in the extreme and unfair.
The driver had absolutely not parked in an antisocial manner or adversely affected anyone in any way whatsoever.
I am able to provide photographs demonstrating widespread unmarked parking bays on request.
I require each and every point raised to be either accepted as grounds for cancellation of the supposed charge or refuted in full.
WITHIN 35 DAYS – I expect notification of the cancellation of this charge OR a valid POPLA code. Failure to reply will be treated as acceptance of a successful appeal.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.
Signage at the entrance to the hospital campus does not comply with the BPA code of practice for positioning, text sizes and content,
The only part of the signage in the actual car park legible to a driver as they enter reads “No parking allowed on hatched area”. It is clear from your photographs provided that the vehicle was not parked on a hatched area.
On close inspection the smallprint on the car park signage makes it clear that
“the terms and conditions that apply are set out within this notice (the “Parking Contract”)”
And
“This parking contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties”
i.e. “No parking allowed in hatched area”
As the vehicle was not parked in hatched area, there is no legitimate cause to pursue this claim.
In order to be a legitimate charge there must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. £50 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If you are suggesting that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis shows that this requirement is now no longer necessary, then you are mistaken. The supreme court specifically stated that this judgement only applies in respect of similar circumstances.
The circumstances around that case law are very different indeed; for example, this charge cannot be “commercially justified” as a fast turnover of parking spaces is not intended and if not parked in a marked bay as is alleged, then the vehicle in no way prevented the use of that parking space by other staff.
I intend elaborate at POPLA stage if necessary.
You have provided 2 photographs of the vehicle. Neither of which provides any evidence that it is not in a marked bay. That it is shown parked neatly between 2 other vehicles draws into question your claim and so I demand proper evidence of this. I understand under Data Protection Legislation I am entitled to be provided with all photographs of my vehicle upon request.
I am formally requesting copies of all photographs of my vehicle.
I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. Please supply that full, unredacted policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and as there are multiple drivers of the vehicle that may park at that site, no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
As you have failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 there is no Keeper Liability and as such I expect you to uphold this appeal and notify me that this charge is cancelled
As the keeper, I have not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle. As the keeper of the vehicle, I can only be held liable for the Parking Charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied. The Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper fail to comply with Paragraph 8 (2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The PCN issued to the driver does not specify a “period of parking”, it merely denotes a single point of time (hh:mm:ss hrs) of the alleged parking event and charge issue. This does not constitute “proof of parking”, and also does not fulfil Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, again invalidating the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. The Operator has failed to prove that the driver was parked in the alleged place at the time stated.
For example, this does not demonstrate that a grace period has been allowed or that the vehicle was not being loaded or unloaded or a driver was given the opportunity to read any signage.
If you proceed with this claim, I shall be complaining to the DVLA re: your failure to abide by POFA.
I note that your speculative invoice has no VAT content to it. This shows that it can not be a service and must be a penalty. There is no valid legal basis on which the parking operator can require me to pay a punitive charge.
I am aware that it is highly likely that you will deny this appeal, in which case I expect to be furnished with a POPLA code at your expense and will make a more detailed appeal via that, and any other valid processes.
Please note that I am NOT refusing to pay a fee which is legally owed, I am disputing the existence of a valid debt, i.e. it is “in dispute”. As such I shall consider any and all letters from debt collection agencies or solicitors letters ahead of a “Letter before Claim” to be harassment and will be complaining to the relevant authorities and the landowner and I shall be holding the landowner co-responsible for any such harassment.
Instructing such agents to act on your behalf whilst still in dispute will show a clear lack of mitigation of your costs incurred which you have a duty to minimise.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
Myself (and several colleagues) recently received postal notice to keepers for our vehicles parked in a particular space in a hospital staff car park.
Staff permits in place, paid for etc.
There are a LOT of commonly used perfectly appropriate spaces to park in staff car parks that are technically not marked bays, and several car parks that have no marked bays at all, yet for some reason, this space in this car park seems to be being ticketed.
Postal NtK looks broadly ok, other than lack of period as mentioned in the text below.
Not sure whether to go with a soft appeal and then expect POPLA (to make them pay) or a proper first appeal just to make the problem go away without the hassle.
A proper appeal may be worth the effort as CPP may pass appeals onto the hospital potentially for them to be reviewed/cancelled if they fit certain criteria.
Date
Dear Sirs
Re: PCN No. ....................
“Not Within Bay Markings”
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.
Firstly, and most importantly, I believe that you are not proceeding in an “fair” manner – the hospital site has a great many cars that are not parked in marked bays.
As there are hundreds of unmarked parking bays across the site, your suggestion that whilst they are permissible, another is not, is farcical in the extreme and unfair.
The driver had absolutely not parked in an antisocial manner or adversely affected anyone in any way whatsoever.
I am able to provide photographs demonstrating widespread unmarked parking bays on request.
I require each and every point raised to be either accepted as grounds for cancellation of the supposed charge or refuted in full.
WITHIN 35 DAYS – I expect notification of the cancellation of this charge OR a valid POPLA code. Failure to reply will be treated as acceptance of a successful appeal.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.
Signage at the entrance to the hospital campus does not comply with the BPA code of practice for positioning, text sizes and content,
The only part of the signage in the actual car park legible to a driver as they enter reads “No parking allowed on hatched area”. It is clear from your photographs provided that the vehicle was not parked on a hatched area.
On close inspection the smallprint on the car park signage makes it clear that
“the terms and conditions that apply are set out within this notice (the “Parking Contract”)”
And
“This parking contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties”
i.e. “No parking allowed in hatched area”
As the vehicle was not parked in hatched area, there is no legitimate cause to pursue this claim.
In order to be a legitimate charge there must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. £50 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If you are suggesting that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis shows that this requirement is now no longer necessary, then you are mistaken. The supreme court specifically stated that this judgement only applies in respect of similar circumstances.
The circumstances around that case law are very different indeed; for example, this charge cannot be “commercially justified” as a fast turnover of parking spaces is not intended and if not parked in a marked bay as is alleged, then the vehicle in no way prevented the use of that parking space by other staff.
I intend elaborate at POPLA stage if necessary.
You have provided 2 photographs of the vehicle. Neither of which provides any evidence that it is not in a marked bay. That it is shown parked neatly between 2 other vehicles draws into question your claim and so I demand proper evidence of this. I understand under Data Protection Legislation I am entitled to be provided with all photographs of my vehicle upon request.
I am formally requesting copies of all photographs of my vehicle.
I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. Please supply that full, unredacted policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and as there are multiple drivers of the vehicle that may park at that site, no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
As you have failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 there is no Keeper Liability and as such I expect you to uphold this appeal and notify me that this charge is cancelled
As the keeper, I have not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle. As the keeper of the vehicle, I can only be held liable for the Parking Charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied. The Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper fail to comply with Paragraph 8 (2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The PCN issued to the driver does not specify a “period of parking”, it merely denotes a single point of time (hh:mm:ss hrs) of the alleged parking event and charge issue. This does not constitute “proof of parking”, and also does not fulfil Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, again invalidating the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. The Operator has failed to prove that the driver was parked in the alleged place at the time stated.
For example, this does not demonstrate that a grace period has been allowed or that the vehicle was not being loaded or unloaded or a driver was given the opportunity to read any signage.
If you proceed with this claim, I shall be complaining to the DVLA re: your failure to abide by POFA.
I note that your speculative invoice has no VAT content to it. This shows that it can not be a service and must be a penalty. There is no valid legal basis on which the parking operator can require me to pay a punitive charge.
I am aware that it is highly likely that you will deny this appeal, in which case I expect to be furnished with a POPLA code at your expense and will make a more detailed appeal via that, and any other valid processes.
Please note that I am NOT refusing to pay a fee which is legally owed, I am disputing the existence of a valid debt, i.e. it is “in dispute”. As such I shall consider any and all letters from debt collection agencies or solicitors letters ahead of a “Letter before Claim” to be harassment and will be complaining to the relevant authorities and the landowner and I shall be holding the landowner co-responsible for any such harassment.
Instructing such agents to act on your behalf whilst still in dispute will show a clear lack of mitigation of your costs incurred which you have a duty to minimise.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
0
Comments
-
Yep, try it, why not? Worst case is you just get a POPLA code anyway.
Postal NtK looks broadly ok, other than lack of period as mentioned in the text below.
Can you show us part of it or a redacted link? I haven't seen a CPP one for a while.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Insert www in space
NtK
https:// .dropbox.com/s/fs8vxyf88eo78o5/NtK%201.jpg?dl=0
https:// .dropbox.com/s/tlfj09adaae6eq0/NtK%202.jpg?dl=0
Car Park Sign
https:// .dropbox.com/s/lp0rg3ima0ayunk/Carpark%20Sign.jpg?dl=00 -
liberty printers AKA parking eyeSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Ah yes they look like ParkingEye ones because they are owned by Capita but are the non-litigious (as yet, no court cases according to the BMPA) stablemate of PE:
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203667691-Liberty-Printers-AR-RF-Reddin-Ltd-T-A-Liberty-Services-and-The-Car-Parking-Partnership
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Car_Parking_Partnership.html
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fs8vxyf88eo78o5/NtK%201.jpg?dl=0
There's one just like it here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101397
I bet the PCN didn't arrive two working days after the 'date issued'. More like a week after? But then again it probably arrived just after a month (did it?) because you appear to have all got a windscreen PCN first...you should have appealed after 3 weeks, all of you. PE and CPP are both firms who forget to send postal NTKs when they get an early appeal from a keeper which they wrongly 'assume' is a driver appeal.
Next time appeal around day 25 after the windscreen PCN and see if that stops any NTK arriving, which is a silver bullet for a registered keeper..
Do the photos identify the exact entrance & exit within the car park? Just thinking of Hospitals which can be sprawling sites with LOTS of PE (or CPP) cameras and which can end up with the allegedly fraudulent PCN type described here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html
And the photos don't seem to identify where the car was parked but is that just because the photo link is unclear? If there is doubt from the photos (if it could be a photo of some tarmac with a car on it, parked anywhere) seize on the lack of evidence in those pics. If there is no indication of how adjacent any sign was to the car where it was parked, seize on that at POPLA stage too.
HTHPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
NtKs arrived late, putting recipient under pressure to pay before it goes from £25 to £50.
Scumbag like practices that make me want to cost them tine and money.
I guess I will include this in complaint to hospital too.
Ticket from footsoldier, no ANPR cameras. No way to know which route driver took to carpark.
Photos are crap, do not clearly demonstrate markings.
The sign photo is mine, no evidence in NtK as to where the signage is.
Driver cannot get close enough to read the small print.
Does the text on the sign make it utterly unenforceable? as that would make colleagues happy and probably grounds to reclaim money from tickets paid by colleagues in the past.0 -
NtKs arrived late, putting recipient under pressure to pay before it goes from £25 to £50.
Arrived after day 56?
After all these purport to have followed a windscreen PCN so should arrive between day 29 and day 56 (para 8 of the POFA).
Forgot about your signage link:
Car Park Sign
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0rg3ima0ayunk/Carpark%20Sign.jpg?dl=0
Well that is a forbidding sign which makes no contractual offer, i.e. it grants you no licence to park, it just penalises 'offenders'.
It's not as simple as saying that fact makes it unenforceable because it's not a matter of comparing it to any clear, defined law. It's not like a Council PCN where the signs have to match the TSRGD 2002, unfortunately.
Read these to see how such signs can be argued in a defence in court to create no contract:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html
This argument can be adapted into a POPLA appeal easily and can show how this sign and charge is nothing like the ParkingEye v Beavis 'contractual agreement' decision at the Supreme Court (about a licence to park, with consideration flowing between the parties and a legitimate interest allowing a disproportionate charge). Anything else can still be an unenforceable penalty.
The only spanner in the works is POPLA...some Assessors haven't a clue.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
NtK allegedly (lies) posted day 29 I think, but arrived over a week later, leaving only a few days for someone to pay the reduced fee.
This is "in time" as far as POFA goes, but I believe they deliberately delayed it to apply time-pressure to recipient.
I want to get this squashed in a way that also gives colleagues a safe getout too.
I'm torn between getting this resolved quickly and causing them the maximum amount of time and money wasted. I have a bee in my bonnet about this because of the injustice.
Thanks for the post-Beavis cases!
What would have to happen for people that have ALREADY paid up to claim their money back? or is it too late for them?0 -
there is only one reduction (not a fine) and that is to pay ZERO.
they could not (legally) send the NTK any earlier , and YES it was in time , between days 29 and 56!
it is unfortunate that you did not find this forum sooner and send off the suggested BPA appeal at the suggested time
with that in mind , go for coupon-mads suggestions , but tell any new "recipitant" of tickets to follow the newbies threadSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
I delayed as:
1) I wanted to know if they would actually go to the DVLA for details.
2) I wanted to cost them money by going to DVLA (which I now believe may not be the case)0 -
only members of a recognised ATA can get info from the DVLA.
there are 2 such ATAs
1: the IPC
https://www.theipc.info/aos-members
2: the BPA
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators
your operator is with the BPA.
2 types of operation
1: ticket placed on car
a NTK must be sent , and received between days 29 and 56 , the PPC cannot legally obtain your info before 28 days
2: ANPR , or no ticket on car ,
the NTK must be received within 14 days
the PPC can apply for your info immediately
the cost of going to the DVLA is no more than £2.50
so far they seem to be correct on the paper work , but totally failing on signage , and probably morals.
I suspect this is a self ticket setup , tickets being placed on cars by hospital security .
I wonder if they were wearing full CPP/Liberty uniforms whilst they carried out the operation?Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards