Euro car park parking charge notice

Umkomaas

Umkomaas wrote: »

MSE Towers are a bit tetchy about that, but rather than put Joe Bloggs, you could just put Joe B, we'll work it out. If it's a real problem for MSE, they'll soon just scrub the name.

I didn't literally mean Joe Bloggs! If it was Carly Law, then Carly L. Get my drift?

Coupon-mad

verynicelady wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Decision[/FONT]
Successful

[FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of operator case[/FONT]
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.
[FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of your case[/FONT]

The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as:
• The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
• Amount demanded is a penalty
• Landowner Authority
• Photo evidence appears doctored
• Signage
• Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper 'issued/given' dates conflict and do not comply with Schedule 4 - no keeper liability.
• No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

[FONT=&quot]Assessor supporting rational for decision[/FONT]
The operator issued a PCN to the appellant as no valid pay and display/permit was purchased. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as:
• The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
• Amount demanded is a penalty
• Landowner Authority
• Photo evidence appears doctored
• Signage
• Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper 'issued/given' dates conflict and do not comply with Schedule 4 - no keeper liability.
• No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)

When a parking operator is pursuing a keeper as liable for a charge, it must satisfy the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Within PoFA 2012 it states at Paragraph 9(2)(f) that the notice to keeper must: “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”

As such, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’.

Within PoFA 2012, it further states that: “a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”

Therefore, it is clear that the date the Notice to Keeper was posted is the key date in determining when the 28-day period begins.

Having considered the Notice to Keeper sent in this instance, the wording used is as follows: “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and the current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act.”

However, I note that the “Date Issued” referred to above is not the date the Notice to Keeper was posted and is instead, the date of the parking event. As such, it is clear that while the operator has attempted to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, its reference to the “Date Issued” is incorrect and the impact of this is that the keeper would not be given the correct length of time to provide details of the driver.

On this basis, I can only conclude that the Notice to Keeper would fail to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Yay! Very happy to read this decision. Happy to have helped! :T

ECP have now put right their ongoing 'date issued' error, BTW, in current PCNs, so don't collect any more...not that we don't think we would win at POPLA on something else, because we probably would.

verynicelady

I didn't literally mean Joe Bloggs! If it was Carly Law, then Carly L. Get my drift?

Trust me.... x

Redx

I am well happy to see that they made such a fundamental and basic error and you won at popla because of it

even if they had put in the correct date , you may still have won on another point

but a win is a win, so take some time out and enjoy the victory