Help with TWO PCNs in Own Space in Private Residential Car Park

DevereauxMcGill

I am preparing my POPLA appeal PDF.

I am including from the templates the following sections:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I can paste the entire text here if necessary, however at the moment the text is verbatim from the templates (with dates changed obviously).

A few questions:
1) As per Coupon-mad's reply, should I amend the text of the Notice to Keeper is not compliant section to include their admission of "As you have provided your details we do not need to access DVLA data", and how that this is vital to their winning?

2) I want to include one of NSGL's "evidence" images, which shows just how poor their signage is. This is the image:

And this is the supporting text I have used:
Figure 1. Photograph of parking notice supplied by NSGL as evidence in the PCN (full resolution). Notice the charge details are not in large type. Also the key term pertaining to this PCN regarding displaying a permit is in smaller text, and the “IMPORTANT” notice underneath uses even smaller text that is impossible to read on this photograph. It is also not specified where in relation to the parking space this notice was located.

3) I also have a number of photos of my parking bay and the surroundings showing there are no notices to be seen anywhere around it. The images feature my car. Should I blur out the number plate, or is this OK to include. Supporting text:

Figure 2. Photographs taken by the keeper of the immediate area around the parking space. Note there are NO parking notices as implied by Figure 1 above, anywhere in direct sight of the parking space.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

A few questions:
1) As per Coupon-mad's reply, should I amend the text of the Notice to Keeper is not compliant section to include their admission of "As you have provided your details we do not need to access DVLA data", and how that this is vital to their winning?

2) I want to include one of NSGL's "evidence" images, which shows just how poor their signage is.

Yep do both - make some changes to suit your case (without saying who was driving!) and add your wording about the sign.

I also have a number of photos of my parking bay and the surroundings showing there are no notices to be seen anywhere around it. The images feature my car. Should I blur out the number plate, or is this OK to include.

It is OK to include and those pics are good evidence so embed the photos into the 'unclear signs' point.

Also add the usual template used in EVERY case, about 'no proof of landowner authority' because the purpose is to force them to either cancel, or show the contract.

DevereauxMcGill

Thank you Coupon-mad.

Here is the amended text for point 1 (added text in italics):

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
To date I have not been issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) by UKPC. 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 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on 02/01/2017 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by 27/02/2017. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

In their response to my appeal, NSGL stated in point 4: “As you have provided your details we do not need to access DVLA data”. However as per paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA they must obtain that data from the DVLA only and they then use that data to serve a Notice to Keeper by day 57.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the registered keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK at all. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.

DevereauxMcGill

I've also slightly amended this section of text in the Parking Signs section (new text in italics), as it is especially relevant to this case:

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. They are also not directly illuminated, meaning that, for example, at night they would be impossible to read. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

Any thoughts on the amendments before I submit the POPLA appeal?

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Seems good to go.

DevereauxMcGill

We won our POPLA appeal!

NSGL 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.

Thanks so much for all the advice!

Coupon-mad

That was quick and painless!

Fruitcake

One final thing, please do use Mail Redirect so that any post sent to your old address gets forwarded to you. It is cheap compared with the cost of missing important documents, and can be done (I think) for six months or twelve.
Personally I would always go for twelve.