Windscreen ticket on hire vehicle in own spot

bod1467

If there has been no Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer then their case is fundamentally flawed in law ... POFA lays down strict requirements to be able to transfer liability to a keeper or hirer. Therefore you must include this properly in your appeal.

Mr_Stroopwafel

bod1467 wrote: »

If there has been no Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer then their case is fundamentally flawed in law ... POFA lays down strict requirements to be able to transfer liability to a keeper or hirer. Therefore you must include this properly in your appeal.

Thanks for the reply.
It hasn't been 28 days yet as I appealed early since it was a hire vehicle. My POPLA deadline is before the 56 days is up however so I wouldn't expect to receive an NtK before I appeal?

bod1467

If the PPC has received an appeal, rejected it and issued a POPLA code, it is highly unlikely that they'll even think about issuing an NtK.

Once you've submitted your POPLA appeal, it'll likely take a few days before they even see it, by which time they'll be out of time - even if they think to try and send one.

HO87

Going all the way back to basics:

1. What does your lease say about your use of a/the parking space?
2. What does the on-site signage say?

Mr_Stroopwafel

HO87 wrote: »

Going all the way back to basics:

1. What does your lease say about your use of a/the parking space?
2. What does the on-site signage say?

1. It's actually my girlfriend's lease, all it mentions in the lease is under the "Car Parking" heading as follows:
-To park private vehicles only at the Premises
-To park in the space allocated to the Premises if applicable
-To park in the garage/driveway allocated to the Premises if applicable
-To keep any garage, driveway, or space free from oil and to pay for removal and cleaning if caused by tenant, visitor or contractor
-To remove all vehicles belonging to the tenant at the end of the tenancy
-Not to park any vehicle at the premises which is not road worthy and fully taxed

There's nothing else about parking and I can't see any "catch all" type clauses that would signify a tenant agreeing to the management agent employing MBW.

There is an additional £50 per month paid as part of the rent for a parking spot to the letting agent. (it's included as part of the rent each month but was extra)

2. http://imgur.com/UzsJeoU - This is with a flash and up close so you can actually read it

Thank you for the help!

Mr_Stroopwafel

As you can also see on the sign if you look closely it says 20 minutes loading/unloading for "delivery vehicles", the vehicle was observed for only 19 minutes. Would this be another point?

TIA

The_Slithy_Tove

Mr_Stroopwafel wrote: »

There is an additional £50 per month paid as part of the rent for a parking spot to the letting agent. (it's included as part of the rent each month but was extra)

You should include this fact in the "Permission Granted" section, stating that such payment is under a contract which gives you the right to park a vehicle. Therefore MBW cannot themselves offer you something (parking) that you already have rights to under another contract. [There's probably a better way to put it if anyone can oblige.]

Mr_Stroopwafel

@HO87, Please see a couple of posts up regarding what the AST says, and what the signage is.

Latest draft is below,

Just a couple of questions:

1. Do I need to send the whole tenancy agreement? or is just the relevant section sufficient?

2. If I send the appeal now, can POPLA rule that the operator still has time to issue an NtK/Notice to Hirer?
(My POPLA code expires before the 56 days from the windscreen notice is up). They have my details as keeper/hirer already since I followed the newbie thread but not had any NtK/Hirer yet just an initial rejection, then final rejection with POPLA code.

___

POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
Alleged Infringement

The Respondent alleges that, on XXXX , the driver of a vehicle registration number XXXX, of which I am the Registered Keeper, was parked at the bay allocated to Flat XX car park at the xxxxxx Car Park, xxxxxxxxxx in breach of the terms and conditions and as such a Parking Charge of £100 is due.
As registered keeper of the vehicle, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by Minster Baywatch on the following grounds:

1. The alleged offence did not occur
2. Permission was granted by tenant and landowner
3. No contract exists in a Trespass case
4. No standing or authority from the landowner to enforce this charge
5. No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge – (ParkingEye vs Beavis Case not relevant)
6. No contract with driver due to Inadequate signage
7. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to unfair, disproportionately punitive and non-transparent terms
8. Breach of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
9. Minster Baywatch’s Notice to Hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA
10. No Grace Period - 20 minute loading/unloading time allowed


1. The alleged offence did not occur

Contrary to the assertions of Minster Baywatch, a permit was in fact clearly on display at the time the vehicle was parked, despite there being no legal basis to issue a parking charge if not doing so – this was done out of courtesy. Please refer to the enclosed pictures as evidence of this (Appendix items 8-11).

2. Permission was granted by tenant and landowner

This car park is part of a private residential development of flats and can only be accessed by an electronically locked gate, which only tenants and authorised users have access to. As stated, permission was granted by the tenant/occupier of the corresponding flat and thereby the landowner, for this vehicle to be parked in their allocated bay. This contract in which the tenant pays monthly rent to the letting agent (which includes the use of this parking bay) overrides any contract the Operator may or may not have with the management agency.

I refer you to the enclosed section of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement (enclosed in Appendix item 1) which makes no mention of the requirement to display a permit or require any authorisation from Minster Baywatch, only the following terms:


“Car Parking:
21.1 To park private vehicle(s) only at the Premises
21.2 To park in the space allocated to the Premises if applicable
21.3 To park in the garage/driveway allocated to the Premises if applicable
21.4 To keep any garage, driveway, or space free from oil and to pay for removal and cleaning if caused by the vehicle of a tenant, his/her family, contractors or visitors
21.5 To remove all vehicles belonging to the tenant, his/her family at the end of the tenancy
21.6 Not to park any vehicle at the premises that is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed”

The tenant pays for the parking space through monthly rent paid to the letting agent as agreed in the aforementioned contract, this gives the tenant the right to park their vehicle or that of a visitor in the allocated bay. The contractual licence is not with Minster Baywatch, they cannot offer the same thing on top of this existing contract nor dictate any terms such as the requirement to display a permit.

I also point to the enclosed photos of the permit itself (Appendix item 13 & 14) which makes no mention of the requirement to display it or any mention of the £100 parking charge on neither the front nor back side. Neither the tenant, the driver nor keeper have signed or made any agreement with Minster Baywatch to display a permit so this parking charge remains completely unenforceable, the displaying of a permit is done so out of courtesy.

3. No contract exists in a Trespass case - (ParkingEye vs Beavis Case is not relevant)
With reference to Case B6QZ4H3R, before Deputy District Judge Ellington, UKPC v Mr M [2016], another case concerning where “Permit Only” parking was breached.
In the judgement for the above case, the judge stated “the signage displayed clearly only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed. The circumstances of this were different from Beavis, and therefore that ruling did not assist the claimant in this case.
Any remedy for parking without a permit could only lie with the freeholder, under a tort of trespass. But that wasn’t being claimed here, and the present claimant has no cause of action, the claim is dismissed.”
In the case under appeal here, if the vehicle was parked without a permit or was “not an authorised user” as alleged by Minster Baywatch, they were in fact a trespasser and it is the landowner who has the right to pursue for damages, not the Parking Operator. Such damages would be exactly that – the amount of damage created in the act of trespass. Considering this parking bay was paid for by the tenant and aside from the alleged lack of permit on display, would otherwise be considered to be parked correctly in their allocated bay, the amount of damages would be negligible.

4. No standing or authority from the landowner to enforce this charge

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, Minster Baywatch must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right - which they do not.

Section 7.1 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.

“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”.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the BPA CoP 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 therefore put Minster Baywatch to provide strict proof to POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between the operator 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 which have been properly assigned to Minster Baywatch.

Please note that a redacted or out of date copy of any such contract cannot be accepted as valid evidence and has been rejected as such in previous POPLA decisions for this reason – see POPLA appeal 6062785103 dated 07/01/2016.

I also refer you to the case at Winchester County Court of R.L Davey v UKPC where UKPC were obliged to pay Mr. Davey a total of £1,430.26 in costs and damages after persistently ticketing his vehicle on his private property (in a residential car park allocated to a flat such as this one) despite his warnings.

The Assured Shorthold Tenancy (Appendix 1) makes no mention of the requirement to display a permit. Therefore Minster Baywatch have no authority to issue a Parking Charge Notice as this AST supersedes any agreement they might have with a management or letting agency. As stated, the terms of this contract in which the tenant pays for the parking bay overrides any contract the Operator may or may not have with the management agency.
 
5. No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge – (ParkingEye vs Beavis Case is not relevant to this appeal)

The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing their charge, the charge is disproportionate, a penalty and an unenforceable Unfair Contract Term. This case can easily be distinguished from the ParkingEye v Beavis case. With regards to the location and type of the car park and the interests of the operator, there is no comparison with the Beavis decision. The legitimate interest lies with the tenant of the flat to which this bay is allocated and as stated this vehicle was fully permitted by them to park there. As the parking bay is already paid for in a separate contract, no loss has been incurred by Minster Baywatch nor do any of the commercial justifications judged to be present in that case apply here.

The Operator may seek to rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis as legitimising the charge in this case. The appellant will make the following observations as to why the material case can be easily distinguished from it. The Supreme Court adjudged that the charge in ParkingEye v Beavis could not be considered a penalty, despite the fact that ParkingEye made no loss, because they had a legitimate interest in enforcing that charge and that the charge was not disproportionate to that interest. The legitimate interest was described in paragraph 97 of the Supreme Court judgment as:

“97 a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants prospective customers;-
b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;-
c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential
number of such customers;-
d. The related need to prevent `misuse' of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to off-park premises; and
e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves.”

In that case the penalty rule had been engaged by the charge but was then disengaged for the above reasons. In this case the appellant would submit that the penalty rule has similarly been engaged but in contrast it is not disengaged, the Operator has made no loss and the charge remains a penalty. The vehicle was fully entitled to be parked as it was – as stated in the tenancy agreement (enclosed) there is no requirement to display any permit and the parking bay is already paid for in the monthly rent, as agreed in the contract between the tenant and letting agent.

Further to this, this residential car park can only be accessed with permission from the tenants or landowner as there is an electronic entry system to unlock the gates. Therefore the general public are unable to access this private resident’s car park in the same way as that of the Parking Eye vs Beavis case - so there is no legitimate commercial interest in enforcing a charge to ensure a turnover of customer vehicles. In further contrast to the Beavis case, these penalty charges cannot be expected to underwrite any free parking for customers – this is a purely residential car park so no free parking is offered to any customers, and secondly the resident already pays for their allocated parking spaces through their rental agreement.

The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing this charge; their only interest is to seek to profit and intimidate genuine residents into paying their speculative invoices – for parking in a bay they have already paid for and have every right to park in. Their charge remains an unenforceable penalty as none of the legitimate interests pursued in Parking Eye v Beavis are present in this case. To quote the passage referred to in the Supreme Court judgment.

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.”

The Supreme Court made clear that their judgment related only to that particular car park and how it operated. In this situation it is impossible, without intellectual dishonesty, to believe that they would determine that this alleged offence would justify such a disproportionate, extravagant and unconscionable charge when the vehicle was parked in the flat’s own allocated bay where it has every entitlement to.

Careful analysis of the Supreme Court judgment is not, as the Operator may believe, a judicial green light legitimising all parking charges. It is indeed quite the reverse, and the onus is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in enforcing their charge and that the charge is proportionate to that interest.

With regards to the findings of the ParkingEye vs Beavis case regarding signage and its application to this case, the sum of £100 is not communicated to drivers clearly and unambiguously. Therefore, it falls foul of the findings of the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye v Beavis, where the prominence of the £85 charge depicted on a simple sign in contrasting large lettering, was key. If a driver is unable to read the sum of the parking 'charge' (the £100 in this case) before parking - because the sign is wordy and unremarkable, the charge not prominent and the words too small to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. I refer you to the enclosed photographs of the signage on the site displaying the view of the signage from a driver’s seat.

The Beavis case depended upon clear, prominent and unambiguous signage and equally, a specific and compelling commercial justification, giving rise to a rare exception to the penalty rule in that case only. It may be useful to refer to but it cannot be used to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals. The signs provided do not clearly state the amount that will be charged to motorists that do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking at the location. The signage in place at the location is not “conspicuous” or “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice. It therefore does not meet the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in that the “wording of the notices” is not sufficiently “clear” to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who use this car park.

I would remind POPLA that, at the end of September 2015, the outgoing POPLA Service Manager confirmed the following in writing, as the official POPLA policy regarding the requirement for proper application of the Beavis case by both parties. By definition, it is never the remit of POPLA to 'make the Beavis case' for an operator whose argument is weak or silent as regards any 'legitimate' basis for their charge:

''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Yours sincerely
R Reeve
POPLA Administrative Team”

The burden now shifts to this operator (not POPLA) to submit their argument to try to counter mine, that due to the facts of this particular charge in this car park with completely different features, and with these signs, the Beavis case does not assist them at all.

(continued in next post)

Mr_Stroopwafel

(continued from above)

6. No contract with the driver due to inadequate signage

Section 18 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”.

The signs are not “conspicuous” and “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and are not sufficiently “clear” in order to meet the standard outlined by the Supreme Court as referred to in the above section.

I require Minster Baywatch to state the height and position of each sign in their response. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the 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. Therefore, it is the fault of Minster Baywatch in the drafting and positioning of the signs that a driver did not see them at all. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate residents who are not 'customers' of Minster Baywatch and so are not expecting to read a contract.

Secondly, in this particular covered and unlit car park there is no visible signage, so that in darkness no signs are clearly visible and the words are unreadable. Signs are also obscured by the large concrete pillars supporting the structure of the building above and other vehicles. I put Minster Baywatch to prove otherwise; and as well as provide a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash.

I refer you to the attached photos (Appendix items 4 & 5) showing:
1. There is no sign at the entrance when the vehicle is stationary
2. No working illumination therefore the sign is not readable
3. The sign is not prominent and so small and far from the entrance to the flats that it cannot be seen, not reflective and is not lit by headlights.
4. Sign is not readable during the hours of darkness - despite parking enforcement operating during the hours of darkness – “Enforcement 24 hours /7 days” as claimed by Minster Baywatch

Therefore any signage breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area.

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.



 
7. Breach of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/pdfs/uksi_20133134_en.pdf

The operator's signage and PCN fails the informational requirement for distance contracts in the above Regulations. Under Section 5 a “distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer. This alleged contract relied upon the written word in the small print on a sign, without the operator being physically present. In the event that this parking operator attempts to dismiss this appeal point by suggesting that this type of contract is exempt from these regulations, I contend it is very obviously not. The only exemptions are specifically listed in the Regulations and this 'contract' fits none of the stated exemptions.

This is certainly not a simple, immediate ‘day to day transaction’ defined by the EU in the Guidance as ‘buying a cup of coffee or a newspaper’. In fact, charging for use of parking spaces is specifically stated as covered by the Regulations, as shown in the EU Guidance behind the original Directive upon which the UK Law is based where it is stated: ''For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive.''

Information to be provided before making a distance contract:

''13.—(1) Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader — (a) must give or make available to the consumer the information listed in Sch. 2 in a clear and comprehensible manner, and in a way appropriate to the means of distance communication used.

(2) In so far as the information is provided on a durable medium, it must be legible.

(4) Where a distance contract is concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information— (a) the information listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (l) and (s) of Schedule 2 must be provided on that means of communication in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), but (b) the other information required by paragraph (1) may be provided in another appropriate way.

(5) If the trader has not complied with paragraph (1) in respect of paragraph (g), (h) or (m) of Schedule 2, the consumer is not to bear the charges or costs referred to in those paragraphs.

(7) A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader.''

A failure to provide the statutory information as listed in Schedule 2 in the Act (linked above) and failure to obtain express agreement to a contract via use of transparent and legible terms renders any UK consumer contract unrecoverable.



8. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to unfair, disproportionately punitive and non-transparent terms

There is no legitimate reason for this extortionate charge. I contend that this is an unfair term which breaches the requirements for fairness and transparency because the 'parking charge' was not adequately communicated nor agreed before a driver became bound by it.

This operator somewhat vaguely alludes to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in their rejection letter but in fact there are no saving reasons in this material case, which could in any way be considered the same as the ones given at the Supreme Court. As that hearing was prior to the Consumer Rights Act being enacted on 1st October 2015, the UTCCRs were discussed and the question of fairness was considered, as must always be the case, by reference to all the circumstances existing when the term was purported to be have been agreed.

The Beavis case is binding case law which assists appellants because it states that the 'penalty rule' is certainly engaged in private parking charge cases and was only 'disengaged' in that case alone, due to the unusual circumstances at a time when the shops were open. A need for a turnover of spaces in trading hours was held to be commercial justification for a higher sum to be charged after an initial licence of free parking expired.

No such commercial justification exists in this case and the penalty rule remains firmly engaged. The only transparent thing about this 'charge' is that it is punitive, so it is an unfair consumer term which is unenforceable, as confirmed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015:


SCHEDULE 2

Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

PART 1 - List of terms

6) A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

10) A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.

12) A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to determine the characteristics of the subject matter of the contract after the consumer has become bound by it.

14) A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound.

18) A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.


62 - Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair

(1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer.

(2) An unfair consumer notice is not binding on the consumer.

(4) A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

(6) A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer.


68 - Requirement for transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

69 - Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent...if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible. 

9. Minster Baywatch’s Notice to Hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA

As the vehicle in question is a hire car and was under my signature on the date this Parking Charge Notice was issued, I was the hirer/keeper on that day. However, there was more than one possible driver and the operator has failed to show any evidence of who was driving, so the PoFA 2012 must have been complied with, if they were to hold me liable as hirer.

In order to be able to rely upon PoFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, a Creditor must deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully meets the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA.

This operator failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ at all, has never obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA and now it is too late. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving and no evidence of this has been produced, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2016 that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper or hirer in the absence of a NTK or Notice to Hirer.

Minster Baywatch cannot rely upon PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the hirer or keeper of the vehicle as they are claiming. Minster Baywatch has therefore forfeited any right to hold me liable for this PCN in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, with Paragraph 14 setting out the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for an unpaid parking charge.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; b) a copy of the hire agreement; and c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as registered keeper)).

Minster Baywatch did not provide me with a copy of any of these additional documents.

For this reason alone, POPLA may reasonably determine that Minster Baywatch has no valid claim against me and that my appeal should therefore be allowed.
 
10. No Grace Period and 20 minutes loading/unloading time allowed

The signage states drivers are allowed a period of up to 20 minutes loading and unloading time. Since the vehicle was only observed for 19 minutes (as stated on the enclosed Notice to Driver, Appendix item 12) the Parking Charge Notice cannot be said to have been issued correctly.

In addition to this, Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states ‘Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice’.
(http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf)

The vehicle was observed for 19 minutes, this does not allow the driver sufficient time to find a space, park, locate and then observe the signage and then either agree to the terms or then exit the car park through the electronic gate.


Summary

Any one of the above points alone gives POPLA valid grounds to allow my appeal. I look forward to your response. This concludes my appeal.


Yours faithfully

Fruitcake

I haven't read it in detail, but it looks very good to me.

As far as the NTK is concerned, I would just state that one has not been received and therefore the requirements of POFA 2012 have not been met. By the time the PPC see it, realise they have not sent one, and actually done anything about it, hopefully they will have passed the deadline anyway.

As far as the lease is concerned, I would play them at their own game and send a redacted copy so only the bits about parking, (or lack of any parking restrictions) are evident. They have no right to see anything else. Be very careful not to imply who was driving though.

Include your own pics of signage, but take them without flash and further back, especially if they are high up or partially hidden.