We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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).
Parking Solutions 24 at Salford Uni
RootieTootie
Posts: 22 Forumite
Hi there,
This PCN is at the POPLA appeal stage Vs Parking Solutions 24.
Background: On visiting a student at halls in Salford on an October weekend, the driver parked in the privately owned car park run by Parking Solutions 24 under the halls. The only way to pay was via an app called PayPhoneSession. On arriving late on Sunday evening 30 mins before the chargeable time was due to finish, it was not clear if there would be an overnight charge. The family member put money on the car to cover the 30 mins. There was no signage relating to an overnight stay and so enough money was added to cover the first hour of the next morning.
The next day a full day payment was put on the car, however, the driver had already been ticketed. Basically, it became apparent there was a 15 hour limit which wouldn't cover the next day. The company expects drivers to use the phone app at 7am for the days parking. If an attempt is made to extend the parking and it's within the previous 15 hours, you can't. The week before, the parking was seemingly free (perhaps because it was freshers week).
The signage is woeful - only one main sign on a middle wall with lots of tiny font (including the 'chargeable' parking hours).
The appeal in response to the NTK, which was received by the keeper after 28 days, was rejected on the following grounds Your vehicle was observed as being parked in a Permit Holders Only parking space, without clearly displaying a valid parking permit or purchasing a valid paybyphone session. Notice of the terms and conditions of parking is served by way of numerous large warning signs which are displayed at prominent places throughout the site. Please see enclosed document for a detailed response to your appeal narrative.
I've pasted the POPLA appeal below.
I am keen to know the following...
- What evidence should be provided with this appeal - photos? parking receipt evidence? (which specifies the time parking was paid for - image on a previous post - or would this not be favourable to provide?)
- Is there any mileage in fact that also there is a BPA logo on the initial NTD, there is in fact no BPA logo on the NTK?
- I also wonder if Point 3 of the letter is too convoluted and overwhelmed with additional case example at the end?
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA XXXXXXX
Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
Date of Issue: 25/11/2016
Company in question: Parking Solutions 24 Limited
I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £118 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by PCN Parking Solutions for Parking Solutions 24 Limited.
As the keeper of the car, I have contacted the driver of the event, and was allowed to quote the words here: “A paybyphone payment was made from the previous evening 30 minutes before the end of the ‘chargeable hours’ leaving enough money over to cover the next morning. However, it was discovered on finding the PCN that there is a 15 hours limit meaning the monies paid did not run over to the next morning. There is no clear signage to determine that there is a maximum hours parking restriction or any signage relating to parking overnight. It is unbelievable to imagine that visitors to a university hall should ever be subjected to these kind of restrictions and in turn extortionate penalties”.
Based on the quotation, I believe the driver of the event made a valid payment, however, due to unclear signage was not aware of the limitations on the time allowed to pay for parking. The driver has provided evidence of all payments through the paybyphone session.
Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage
2. Parking Solutions 24 Limited’s Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
4. No breach/trespass
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being presented with clear time restrictions on maximum parking hours and/or payment of those hours when parking on the premises.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.
The parking company needs to prove that on parking the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Solutions 24 Limited is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due to pay on site.
The alleged breach occurred due to unclear instructions regarding the limitation of parking hours allowed to be paid for. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time.
There were, in fact, no signs at all located near where the vehicle was parked and no signage relating to 1) overnight parking and 2) maximum stay and/or the limitation of parking hours allowed to be paid for in advance.
There is only one significant sign on the site in question, located out of sight from where the vehicle above was parked. The wording on this signage is insufficient to form a contract with a visitor for many reasons including using a font of insufficient proportions to be clearly read.
Furthermore, the signage offers nothing and is also forbidding in the wording. The wording invites parking only to those with a valid permit or who have a paybyphone access. Other persons without either are not invited and are therefore trespassers. Therefore only the landowner can claim for trespass against the keeper.
The landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Solutions 24 Limited did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.
2. Parking Solutions 24 Limited’s Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to the dates, time and the wording used.
Contrary to the response on the rejection letter of the appeal which states “We can confirm Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was not referenced within the Notice to Keeper, our client Parking Solutions 24 Limited are entitled to write to the keeper in regards to the driver information”, I can confirm that Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was specifically referenced in the Notice to Keeper from PCN Parking Solutions for Parking Solutions 24 Limited, and states very clearly on the first page:
“If you are unable to provide the driver’s name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the PoFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12.
Under paragraph 8 (2), it is a requirement of PoFA that the NTD and the NTK contain the same information whereas the time noted on the NTD and NTK is not consistent and does not match. PoFA states:
8 (2) The notice must—
(c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
The time detail is not repeated and differs on both the NTD and NTK.
Under paragraph 4 (5), the maximum claim recovered from the keeper must equal that requested from the driver. PoFA states:
4 (5)
The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).
The NTK is not PoFA compliant as extra fees to the sum of £18 have been added to the ‘charge’. To reiterate, PoFA allows only a claim for the amount of the drivers liability.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no PoFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.
I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a PoFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the PoFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the PoFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
The vital matter of full compliance with the PoFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the PoFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.’'
5. No breach/trespass
To reiterate, if there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the Parking Solutions 24 Limited ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if Parking Solutions 24 Limited do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform Parking Solutions 24 Limited to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,
XXXXXXXXXXX
This PCN is at the POPLA appeal stage Vs Parking Solutions 24.
Background: On visiting a student at halls in Salford on an October weekend, the driver parked in the privately owned car park run by Parking Solutions 24 under the halls. The only way to pay was via an app called PayPhoneSession. On arriving late on Sunday evening 30 mins before the chargeable time was due to finish, it was not clear if there would be an overnight charge. The family member put money on the car to cover the 30 mins. There was no signage relating to an overnight stay and so enough money was added to cover the first hour of the next morning.
The next day a full day payment was put on the car, however, the driver had already been ticketed. Basically, it became apparent there was a 15 hour limit which wouldn't cover the next day. The company expects drivers to use the phone app at 7am for the days parking. If an attempt is made to extend the parking and it's within the previous 15 hours, you can't. The week before, the parking was seemingly free (perhaps because it was freshers week).
The signage is woeful - only one main sign on a middle wall with lots of tiny font (including the 'chargeable' parking hours).
The appeal in response to the NTK, which was received by the keeper after 28 days, was rejected on the following grounds Your vehicle was observed as being parked in a Permit Holders Only parking space, without clearly displaying a valid parking permit or purchasing a valid paybyphone session. Notice of the terms and conditions of parking is served by way of numerous large warning signs which are displayed at prominent places throughout the site. Please see enclosed document for a detailed response to your appeal narrative.
I've pasted the POPLA appeal below.
I am keen to know the following...
- What evidence should be provided with this appeal - photos? parking receipt evidence? (which specifies the time parking was paid for - image on a previous post - or would this not be favourable to provide?)
- Is there any mileage in fact that also there is a BPA logo on the initial NTD, there is in fact no BPA logo on the NTK?
- I also wonder if Point 3 of the letter is too convoluted and overwhelmed with additional case example at the end?
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA XXXXXXX
Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
Date of Issue: 25/11/2016
Company in question: Parking Solutions 24 Limited
I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £118 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by PCN Parking Solutions for Parking Solutions 24 Limited.
As the keeper of the car, I have contacted the driver of the event, and was allowed to quote the words here: “A paybyphone payment was made from the previous evening 30 minutes before the end of the ‘chargeable hours’ leaving enough money over to cover the next morning. However, it was discovered on finding the PCN that there is a 15 hours limit meaning the monies paid did not run over to the next morning. There is no clear signage to determine that there is a maximum hours parking restriction or any signage relating to parking overnight. It is unbelievable to imagine that visitors to a university hall should ever be subjected to these kind of restrictions and in turn extortionate penalties”.
Based on the quotation, I believe the driver of the event made a valid payment, however, due to unclear signage was not aware of the limitations on the time allowed to pay for parking. The driver has provided evidence of all payments through the paybyphone session.
Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage
2. Parking Solutions 24 Limited’s Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
4. No breach/trespass
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being presented with clear time restrictions on maximum parking hours and/or payment of those hours when parking on the premises.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.
The parking company needs to prove that on parking the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Solutions 24 Limited is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due to pay on site.
The alleged breach occurred due to unclear instructions regarding the limitation of parking hours allowed to be paid for. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time.
There were, in fact, no signs at all located near where the vehicle was parked and no signage relating to 1) overnight parking and 2) maximum stay and/or the limitation of parking hours allowed to be paid for in advance.
There is only one significant sign on the site in question, located out of sight from where the vehicle above was parked. The wording on this signage is insufficient to form a contract with a visitor for many reasons including using a font of insufficient proportions to be clearly read.
Furthermore, the signage offers nothing and is also forbidding in the wording. The wording invites parking only to those with a valid permit or who have a paybyphone access. Other persons without either are not invited and are therefore trespassers. Therefore only the landowner can claim for trespass against the keeper.
The landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Solutions 24 Limited did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.
2. Parking Solutions 24 Limited’s Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to the dates, time and the wording used.
Contrary to the response on the rejection letter of the appeal which states “We can confirm Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was not referenced within the Notice to Keeper, our client Parking Solutions 24 Limited are entitled to write to the keeper in regards to the driver information”, I can confirm that Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was specifically referenced in the Notice to Keeper from PCN Parking Solutions for Parking Solutions 24 Limited, and states very clearly on the first page:
“If you are unable to provide the driver’s name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the PoFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12.
Under paragraph 8 (2), it is a requirement of PoFA that the NTD and the NTK contain the same information whereas the time noted on the NTD and NTK is not consistent and does not match. PoFA states:
8 (2) The notice must—
(c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
The time detail is not repeated and differs on both the NTD and NTK.
Under paragraph 4 (5), the maximum claim recovered from the keeper must equal that requested from the driver. PoFA states:
4 (5)
The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).
The NTK is not PoFA compliant as extra fees to the sum of £18 have been added to the ‘charge’. To reiterate, PoFA allows only a claim for the amount of the drivers liability.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no PoFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.
I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a PoFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the PoFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the PoFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
The vital matter of full compliance with the PoFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the PoFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.’'
5. No breach/trespass
To reiterate, if there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the Parking Solutions 24 Limited ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if Parking Solutions 24 Limited do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform Parking Solutions 24 Limited to cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully,
XXXXXXXXXXX
0
Comments
-
Appeal successful!!!
"Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxx.
Parking Solutions 24 have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team"
Happy Days
0 -
Well done on winning even though no-one spotted your thread before Christmas, no replies wasn't personal - just an accident of timing! Nice one.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 -
It's okay. I received help from Pepipoo but thought I'd also post here for any other comment. Good to share success too!
Happy New Year! 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards