AM Parking Ltd PCN ticket appeal refused. Help needed please.

tango2

Hi

I read the newbies thread and left it until day 26 to appeal the AM Parking Ltd PCN. The appeal has been refused as per attached. I am now unsure what to do next. I have not received an NTK.

The photo evidence show photos of other signage far away from where the driver was parked as well as signage that was obscured by a van waiting. If the driver did not see the signs, then he did not enter into a contract - correct?

I am not sure why he will not provide that land owner details. Nor why I have to appeal to the ombudsman. There is no answer to the disproportionate charge and ignored that the driver was only parked there for 5 minutes. Of course he knows that as he was sitting and waiting to pounce rather than be a decent human being and point out that this is a private parking space. And he assumes I was the driver.

Please could someone provide me with advice on what to do next.

Thanks

Appeal to AM Parking Ltd.

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

Your signs were obscured and were not seen by the driver. The signs were not visible due to a van parking in front of the sign. The car park is complete chaos. The only visible signage stated Tesco’s 20 minutes parking and the driver wrongly assumed this applied to all of the car park. Therefore, with a vehicle blocking the sign, the terms are not readable to drivers before they park. With no clear signage to explain the relevant parking restrictions, no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally.

The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner. In this case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner for 4 minutes of parking. The car was parked from 12.30 to 12.34. The ticket was issued at 12.31 and the Tesco receipt states 12.33 (proof attached). The charge you have asked for is therefore excessive and not justified.

Further, 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 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 no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.


Response

I have read through your letter of appeal and the reason why you have stated that this vehicle was parked in this area. I have looked at the date and time stamped photographic evidence of your vehicle and I have taken all aspects into consideration, there is no valid AM Parking permit visible and that is the reason you received a PCN for failure to display a valid permit. I have enclosed a few pictures of the entrance sign, where your vehicle was parked in a boldly marked private bay with a sign directly in view of your vehicle along with the terms and conditions of the parking enforcement in that area for your perusal. We will not supply yourself our clients details under the data protection act as you entered a contract with ourselves when you decided to park there as per the terms and conditions of the signage.

As you are not a resident you are NOT entitled to park in a resident’s private parking bay to which they pay for.

The onus is on the driver to read the signage and by parking your vehicle there you agree to the terms and conditions.

Whilst I have taken into consideration the contents of your appeal, all private bays are clearly marked as such and shown on the signage in this area, the signage states that parking bays H23-H42 requires a valid residents permit to be displayed at all times along with the bays marked ‘PRIVATE BAY’ along with bay number.

Please can I take this opportunity to inform you that the signage that is displayed in the area where vehicle was parked informs all motorists of the terms and conditions for parking, vehicle registration number parked whilst failing to display a valid permit in the bay H38 to which we have date and time stamped photographic evidence.

We cannot confirm the arrival or departure time of vehicle the date and time it was first noted parked whilst parked failing to display a valid permit for that area and the date and time of which PCN was applied to the vehicle.

PCN was issued on 1st July 2016 and allows for twenty eight days including the date of issue to pay PCN of £100 or a reduced amount of £60 would be accepted if paid within 14 days.

However, due to your appeal my line manager has authorised to accept a payment of £60 for PCN, we have kept the reduced payment amount for PCN in place until Friday 16th September 2016.

Please contact 0845 519 2773 Monday - Friday between the hours of 10:00hrs and 16:00hrs and make arrangements for the payment of PCN or Secure online payment can be made through PayPal via and following the link ‘Payments’ or payment can be sent via crossed cheque or postal order made payable to AM Parking Services Ltd and sent to AM Parking Services Ltd, Payments, PO Box 1260, Kent, ME14 9LZ, please write the reference stated above on the reverse of the cheque.

If the reduced payment of £60 or no further appeal via POPLA has been received by Friday 16th September 2016 then PCN will increase to its original amount of £100 and will be passed to a third party Debt Recovery Company where additional charges may be applied.

We have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

You have a right to appeal via POPLA within 28 days from the date of this letter, using our verification code which is

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.’

Once you have appealed to POPLA you should be aware that you are no longer entitled to the reduced amount and that the full amount of £100 is then payable if you are unsuccessful.

If making payment via telephone, please have to hand your payment details and Our ref: as stated above, please note that payment by telephone using a debit card will incur a £1 admin fee and payment by telephone using a credit card will incur a £2.50 admin fee as per the terms and conditions stated on the signage and PCN.

Yours faithfully Appeals Department

Umkomaas

Firstly, well done on taking things this far on your own after reading the newbies thread.

If this was a windscreen ticket, not receiving a NtK is not a reason for disappointment, but one for optimism, because without them sending a PoFA compliant NtK, they can never hold the keeper liable, only the driver, and in this case, the only person who could reveal who the driver was is the keeper.

You need to appeal to The Ombudsman Service as the next stage in the appeals process - they provide the POPLA independent appeal service where you can get this charged killed off.

The PPC is under no obligation to provide you with the landholder's detail, in fact they won't provide you with anything that helps your case.

Have a look now at the newbies sticky, post #3, which sets you off on your path to POPLA, also the sticky 'POPLA Decisions' where you will see outcomes from POPLA - check only the most recent from this summer only.

You've mentioned 'losses' in your appeal, but that doesn't fly any more since Beavis. Also the Consumer Rights stuff has been overtaken this year by the Consumer Rights Act (check it out if you're going to use it).

Crib from other POPLA appeals (you could try a forum search on 'AM Parking POPLA' - but we don't see many), but please don't blindly copy from other examples without proof reading carefully before posting your draft up here for critique, but there are very few forum regulars left, so you may not get a response. Take it as it comes at the time.

Also learn about 'forbidding' signage. These links will set you off.

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

tango2

Thanks for your response. I will persevere.

Should i consider just ignoring from this stage?

I will come back once I've read all of the info.

Umkomaas

tango2 wrote: »

Thanks for your response. I will persevere.

Should i consider just ignoring from this stage?

I will come back once I've read all of the info.

Absolutely not. POPLA gives you the opportunity to kill this, otherwise the PPC has six years to pursue you through the courts. And if you're thinking of moving home in those six years, you're in a potentially serious situation where a CCJ could be so easily registered against you by default, with a devastating affect in your credit rating, job prospects and your life.

AMP are not currently litigious, but more and more previously benign PPCs are seeking costs via the courts, there's no knowing what AMP might try in the next six years.

tango2

One more question, as I have not received an NTK, is this grounds for an appeal too?

Umkomaas

tango2 wrote: »

One more question, as I have not received an NTK, is this grounds for an appeal too?

I've not gone back to read the OP - but what have you received from the PPC? What was the first communication you received from them?

tango2

Originally Posted by Gadfium View Post
Maybe it sets a new precedent for future use? If it's been used to turn a case over then surely if a PPC falls foul of it again then it can be used against them?
Absolutely. Any newbie reading this who hasn't had an acknowledgement of their initial appeal within 14 days should read Gadfium's thread, linked in post #2289 above, where a scan of the WHOPLA decision is there for copying and pasting into your POPLA appeal.

Umkomaas - I submitted my appeal 26.7 but response received 15.8 = 21 days inclusive of submission date. Can I just appeal on these grounds?

tango2

The first communication I received was a response to my appeal. I did not submit the appeal until day 26. Incidentally, when I first tried to submit the appeal, I received an undeliverable email error stating that their mailbox was full. I had to call them and they asked me to resubmit the appeal in 30 mins.
And then their response to the appeal was 21 days later.

I can't post a photo of their sign or their confusing car park layout which they share with Tescos. I'm sure there are BPA signage issues as I've now learnt this is run by a one man band. Their website has many grammatical errors.

tango2

Hi

I've started to put together my appeal letter. I'm unsure if I should include point 3 or whether I should include inadequate signage as a point. Should i just keep it simple or include as much as possible.

Dear POPLA Appeals Administration Team,

POPLA Ref.x - AM Parking Ltd Limited Parking Charge Notice Ref.

I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by AM Parking Ltd Limited in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions on 1st July 2016. I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1) Failure of AM Parking Ltd to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice
2) No Keeper Liability under POFA 2012– Failure to meet the strict requirements of POFA.
3) AM Parking does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.

1. Failure of AM Parking Ltd to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice
In direct contravention of Clause 22.8 of the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice, to which AM Parking Ltd must abide, states that members of the BPA must “acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it". The initial appeal was lodged on AM Parking Ltd’s online system on 26th July 2016. AM Parking Ltd did not respond until the 15th August 2016, where they rejected the initial appeal. In fact, the first attempt to lodge the appeal was not successful as the AM Parking Ltd mailbox was full and an undeliverable email notification was received. AM Parking had to be contacted in order to resolve this issue so that the appeal could in fact be submitted.
In addition, I refer to POPLA case reference 6060845096 where the assessor ruled the Car Park Operator did not respond to their appeal within the 14 day requirement of 22.8 of the BPA Code of Practice which states “you must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it”. AM Parking Ltd did not respond for 21 days. Therefore, AM Parking Ltd failed to adhere to BPA Code of Practice.

2. No Keeper Liability under POFA 2012

No Notice to Keeper was issued therefore non compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.

The keeper liability requirements of REF must be strictly complied with where the appellant is the Keeper, as in this case.

As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in REF. The alleged infringement occurred on 1/07/2016 and it is understood that the NTK was required to reach the registered keeper no earlier than 28/7/2016 and no later than 26/08/2016, this date has passed & the operator has failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ in any form whatsoever. Therefore as the conditions set out by paragraph 6 REF have not been complied with, there can be no keeper liability. It follows that POPLA will not be able to find that the charge notice is enforceable against the keeper.

As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

3. AM Parking Ltd has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers
I do not believe that AM Parking Ltd has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, AM Parking Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.
I contend that AM Parking Ltd merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out Parking Charge Notices as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require AM Parking Ltd to provide POPLA and me with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits AM Parking Ltd to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

DoaM

That's a decent start ... read the POPLA Decisions thread (start at the end and work back) for links to other people's POPLA appeals that you can crib from.

One comment ... wait as late as possible before sending in your POPLA appeal. Once they receive it and see your No NTK point they might try and send one. You want them to miss the 56 days window.

Umkomaas

You definitely need a 'Signage' point - don't assume that the signs meet BPA requirements. Check them out against the BPA Code of Practice (latest version). You also need to take your own photos, taken at roughly the time of parking - essential if it was dusk/dark at the time (photo without flash if that's the case).

New POPLA are proving to be nowhere near as thorough, perceptive or clued up as former POPLA, who could pick out a winning point easily, so effort in the appeal was concentrated on just key points. Some chanced their arm and won on just one appeal point - but even then, that carried risk.

Out current thoughts on this are moving towards recommending that a 'kitchen sink' approach covering everything should be the default advice. This also has the potential to intimidate the cerebrally challenged PPC in trying to understand it, let alone make the effort to answer a long list of points, causing them to move on to less savvy prey, and they drop the case.