PCN envelope on car but no ticket inside!

KeithP

Bexter8 wrote: »

Does this sound OK? (My previous submission is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10VG_3W9LLm4TTZL-45C39hRyQ1aKruCMw9Bz3tgR0xU/edit?usp=sharing) I can't add any more attachments, only comments so I can't send the photos proving the date it was taken and I'm not sure they can get that info when the image was embedded in a PDF.

The banner had not been replaced at the time of the parking charge and was still advertising the rate at £1 per hour as per the photograph supplied in my POPLA appeal demonstrating that the driver thought they were entering into a contractual agreement paying £3 for 3 hours parking.

The photo taken of the banner on display was taken on the same day as can be proved by the EXIF data in the original photo which states Date taken. A screen grab can also be provided from the phone on which the photo was taken which also identifies the date as being 14 July 2017. Additionally, another photo can be provided, taken on the same day, with the banner showing and 2 cars can be identified as being the same cars as visible in the photos provided by one parking solution. They can be seen in the same position as they were in photo 711738-OPS48620.

As previously stated, the other signage was not clear and the photograph provided by OPS showing the sign adjacent to the car clearly shows it is well below eye level (in fact it appears to be less than 30cm above ground level) and the text is not clear. Even looking at the close up image provided, 711726-OPS48620, any PCN amount cannot be seen and is therefore not clear as it says it should be in the contract provided by OPS. The text is far too small to be read clearly.

It is not clear from the contract whether it is still valid as the initial 12 months had expired, the “rolling” contract may not still be in force. Does the site contact have authority to sign the contract and are they still in charge of the site?

Again, as explained in my original POPLA appeal, POFA 2012 was not adhered to with regards to the Notice to Keeper as laid out previously, therefore liability cannot be transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

I would add those few words in bold.

Bexter8

Thanks Keith! Good edits

Bexter8

SUCCESS!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH to everyone who helped me! First bit of good news in ages, it's been a super stressful couple of weeks here but I'm glad I didn't give up on this! Won on the POFA grounds so the rest wasn't even considered.

"Decision Successful
Assessor Name (redacted)
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to pay and display ticket expired.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal these are: The driver did in fact pay the correct sum for the time parked, according to the fee advertised on the large car park banner. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. Misleading and unclear signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued a PCN due to pay and display ticket expired. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in POFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the Driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of POFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of POFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) 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; From the evidence provided to me, I can see that the Notice to Keeper states, “As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are now invited to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us (in writing using the form overleaf) of the name of the driver and a valid current address of service for the driver and pass this notice on to the driver. Should the registered keeper provide either an unserviceable name and/or address of the driver and/or the driver denies they were in charge of the vehicle at the time of the event, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment for this parking charge with reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver at the time of event”. However, I am not satisfied that this meets the requirements as detailed by section 9 (f) of the PoFA 2012. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the operator issued the Notice to Keeper correctly. I note the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however as I have allowed this appeal these require no further consideration."