Adaptis Parking Enforcement Notice to Keeper

AH16

Hi all

I recently received three (yes three!) "Parking Enforcement Notice to Keeper" from Adaptis Solutions and wanted some help in how to progress. The dates of the incidents are 24 August, 30 August and 2 September and the date of posting of the notice for all three is the 14 September.

I have read through the newbies section but just wanted some further advice. The ticket is from a train station car park via an ANPR and so no ticket was given. You appeal via dashpark online. From what I have seen of a similar post and the forum is that the NTK is incorrect as The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012. :

Two out of the three notices have been posted more than 14 days after the date of the alleged offence (all dates are written on the NTK).

It does not specify the period of parking their "invoice" relates to (there is 20 mins free parking at the car park) but merely gives a single time and date the incident took place at.

I have seen that I am not obligated to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

Couple of other points :

The NTK does not specify any evidence, should I request this?

The parking fee at the time of the alleged incident would be £7. Should I also appeal on the grounds of GPEOL?

I have parked on other occasions at this car park and paid via the dashpark app. This app also indicates that my account is up to date and there is no outstanding claims which does not make sense.

Any help as to how to progress will be appreciated.

Thanks

Fruitcake

Just make the initial appeal using the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES thread, one appeal for each ticket.
You can add a point for two of the NTKs that they fail to meet the requirements of POFA 2012, but be careful not to reveal who was driving. If the third arrived after 14 days, then add the same point to that one as well. It doesn't matter when it was posted, if it arrived late then you say so.

If Byelaws apply to the car park, then you can add that point as well stating it is not relevant land and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable. Again, make sure you don't reveal who was driving.

GPEOL is a dead duck. If/when you get to the PoPLA stage there are many points to use that should win, GPEOL is no longer one of them.

AH16

Thank you for your reply. I will use the BPA template.

I also double checked the signage at the car park this morning and on the ticket I received it states that the cost increases to £100 if not paid within 14 days while the signs at the car park state that it is £85. Not sure if that is something else I should mention.

Thank you again for your help

Coupon-mad

AH16 wrote: »

Thank you for your reply. I will use the BPA template.

I also double checked the signage at the car park this morning and on the ticket I received it states that the cost increases to £100 if not paid within 14 days while the signs at the car park state that it is £85. Not sure if that is something else I should mention.

I would save that silver bullet for POPLA stage!!

AH16

I appealed using the BPA template. I have since received a fishing email from the company trying to obtain further information and giving me 7 days to reply but I will not doing anything further until I get a cancellation or PoPLA code.

Fruitcake

AH16 wrote: »

I appealed using the BPA template. I have since received a fishing email from the company trying to obtain further information and giving me 7 days to reply but I will not doing anything further until I get a cancellation or PoPLA code.

You are learning.

I hope you made three separate appeals, one for each PCN.

AH16

Hi, so just to update you on the situation.

I initially got 3 tickets on the 14/9, 2 of which were after 14 days of the date of the incident. On the 20/9 I then got another 3 tickets. I appealed the first 3 tickets on the 26/9 and the second set of 3 on the 6/10. Each were separate appeals.

On the 29/9 I received an email response relating to all 6 tickets even though I didn't appeal the last 3 by then asking for more info. This was ignored. I then received a further email which I ignored again and another on the 13/10 relating to the initial 3 tickets giving me a deadline until the 17/10. Since then I have not heard back from them regarding the first 3 appeals.

On the 19/10 I then received an email relating to the second set of 3 tickets giving me 7 days to respond with more info. This was ignored and I received an email offering me the discounted rate of £60 per ticket for these tickets if paid within 14 days but also finally a letter with a POPLA code rejecting my appeal for "failing to comply with the payment terms advertised in the terms and conditions at the potters bar train station"

My questions are:
- The first 3 tickets received I have never received a POPLA code. What should I do with these tickets?

- For the 3 tickets I have received a POPLA code:

I will appeal that the NTK is not compliant with POFA 2012
Railway Byelaws Apply and thus not relevant land and not covered by POFA 2012
The amounts on the signage for a parking contravention do not match what is on the Parking enforcement NTK

I'm a bit confused whether I should be appealing against anything else. Any help or comments will be appreciated. Also do I need to set all this information out in the form of a letter to POPLA?

I am also advised that they are in breach of their KADOE agreement with the DVLA not sure if this helps at this stage or if that is for a different complaint.
Many Thanks

pappa_golf

have you recieved 3 popla codes or one?

AH16

I have received 3 popla codes

AH16

This is a draft of the appeal to POPLA. I have left this really late with the deadline FAST approaching so if anyone has any comments please let me know. Thanks in advance:

I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal, based on the points below.

1. Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
Since railway byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask Adaptis Solutions for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point I would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

2. No keeper liability
The driver is not known in this case. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA 2012 stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all this information is not present, then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the conditions set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 have not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. The Notice to Keeper from Adaptis Solutions does not contain the statutory wording required, with some of the omissions stated below:

• The requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking to which the notice relates'. It merely mentions a date and time the incident took place and thus does not specify a period of parking or is there any evidence of a period of parking. This is a failure by Adaptis Solutions to comply and so have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.
• The requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(h), the Notice to Keeper does not specifically identify the creditor. The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any supposed contract was made and Adaptis Solutions have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper and thus not compliant.
• The requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(d), the Notice to Keeper must specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid… Again, this is not stated within the NTK and another failure to meet all the requirements necessary under POFA.
• The requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver. The NTK fails to include all the above wording, as prescribed under the act.

3. No standing/authority to pursue charges or form contracts with the driver and inadequate signage
I believe that Adaptis Solutions has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in their own name. I therefore put Adaptis Solutions to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract between Adaptis Solutions and the landowner. Section 7 of the BPA CoP states that an operator must have the written authorisation of the landowner if they do not own the land, which I believe to be the case with Adaptis Solutions.

Paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Adaptis Solutions to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not another agent, lessee, etc). I would also point out these mandatory requirements, which a vague witness statement or site agreement will not prove as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent will not prove:

7.3 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

As a third party payment system is operational at this location, any landowner contract and supplementary site specific user manual, must also provide evidence that this company has a contract with the landowner permitting the following:
a) payments by this system
b) No DPA rights have been contravened as a consequence of using such a system
C) Full planning consent is in force for the ANPR use and signage at the location.

4. Signage in the car park was inadequate
The signs were not visible from a distance and the words are unreadable. The signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas and not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with evidence of graffiti across the signs. I put Adaptis Solutions to strict proof otherwise as well as a site map showing photos of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park. 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 and thus there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

Furthermore, the Notice to Keeper and the signage display a different amount for the parking charge for both the initial charge and the discounted amount (£85 and £50 on the signage compared to £100 and £60 on the NTK).

5. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Adapstis Solutions cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. Adaptis Solutions would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all. The recent Beavis case was specifically based around getting maximum turnover of vehicles in an otherwise free car park. In a station car park, where you pay for the amount of time you stay, there is no need for vehicle turnover, no "promise to leave" after a certain time. The Supreme Court judges even made this exact point in the Beavis case. Therefore, Beavis does not apply in this instance.

Quentin

The_Deep wrote:

You seem to have a handle on this, here is one I have done for my son in law



I refer to your letter reference xxxxxx regarding an alleged breach of contract by the driver of the above vehicle.


As you must be aware/as you yourself have stated, this land is governed by Railway Byelaws and liability for a debt cannot be passed to the registered keeper by a private parking company. Any legal action must be taken by the train operating company for trespass in a Magistrates' Court within six months of the event. I therefore advise you to take this matter up with the driver.


Should you disregard this advice and issue me with a Popla code I will invoice you for my time spent dealing with the matter, and failure to pay this invoice may result in legal action. and contact the DVLA about a possible breach of your Kadoe conteact and imptoper access to my personal data

Why are you posting this false advice?

For trespass charges the driver is irrelevant! (Read up and see the owner is the only target)