PCN Admin Centre Notice to Keeper/Hirer

Edna_Basher

DollyPeach wrote: »

Please be advised that the time to appeal has now passed. When appealing a Parking Charge Notice it must be done within the first 28 days of receiving the ticket.

It looks like this small-fry operator is attempting to deny the keeper the right to appeal.

So long as you sent your appeal to the correct address as stated on the Notice to Keeper, the operator is in breach of Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. This makes it clear that an operator's procedures must give drivers and keepers the chance to appeal a Parking Charge Notice. Paragraph 22.7 sets a reasonable period of 28 days to be given to a driver, keeper or hirer to appeal the enforcement action.

The Notice to Keeper was only issued on 8th August so you were well within the 28 day time limit with your appeal.

Key Parking Solutions Ltd need to be reported to the BPA for a clear breach of their Code of Practice.

DollyPeach

Quentin wrote: »

You did appeal to the PPC? (That letter looks to have come from a debt collector??)

Sorry I'm new to this, what is the PPC? I responded to the email address that it gave on the Notice to keeper/Hirer which I was sent and also appealed online for good measure.

This says "Thank you for your online submission" so I know I did that part correctly because when I went to www dot ipaymypcn dot net it had a box for "appeal" and that is what I clicked on.

What should I do? Do I ignore it? Or should I respond with

"I challenged this PCN as keeper of the car. My Notice to Keeper was dated 8 August 2017 and I received it on 11 August 2017. My challenge dated 13 August 2017 is well within the 28 days specified."

and nothing else.

DoaM

Small fry PPCs (Private Parking Companies ... most acronyms are explained in the NEWBIES thread) often use another company for data/invoice/appeals processing. That's probably the case here.

Coupon-mad

DollyPeach wrote: »

Sorry I'm new to this, what is the PPC? .

We know newbies come here with no experience, that's why the NEWBIES thread explains the acronyms (post #9, the same one that gives you the BPA and DVLA emails to complain to about the fact they have denied you a right to appeal, as keeper).

It's already in the sticky thread.

Or should I respond with

"I challenged this PCN as keeper of the car. My Notice to Keeper was dated 8 August 2017 and I received it on 11 August 2017. My challenge dated 13 August 2017 is well within the 28 days specified."

Yes but copying in the BPA and DVLA to your complaint.

DollyPeach

OK so as I understand it I need to complain to 3 entities:, PCN Admin Centre, the DVLA, and the BPA.

I have compiled the complaint below to copy to all three as a reply from the email that I received denying me the right to appeal. Please let me know if it is OK and feel free to give constructive advice if it needs to be changed.

To: PCN Admin Centre, May Court, Links Business Centre, Old Woking Road, Woking, Surrey, GU22 8BF, customerservices@zzps.co.uk

Customer Complaint Resolution Team, D16W, DVLA, Swansea, SA6 7JL, ccrt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services, British Parking Association, Stuart House, 41-43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3BN, aos@britishparking.co.uk

On 11 August 2017 I received a Notice to Keeper/Hirer (NtK) from PCN Admin Centre representing their client Key Parking Solutions Ltd. The NtK was dated 8 August 2017 for an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) with an issue date of 12 June 2017.

I appealed the Parking Charge Notice on 13 August 2017. This is well within the 28 days allowed to appeal as keeper.

The appeal was sent through the online appeals system at www dot ipaymypcn dot net which is where I was directed to go to lodge an appeal.

The wording of the appeal was: “Re: PCN No. xxxx, I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.”

I appealed online and also to the email address supplied for appeals so that I would have a record of the appeal and it wouldn’t “fall through the cracks.”

On 16 August 2017 I received the response in the email below stating “Please be advised that the time to appeal has now passed. When appealing a Parking Charge Notice it must be done within the first 28 days of receiving the ticket.”, EFFECTIVELY DENYING ME THE RIGHT TO APPEAL AS KEEPER.

This is a breach of the Code of Practice the PPC is signed up to and any breach of the Code of Practice the PPC is signed up to, breaches the KADOE contract to get DVLA data.

The matter has been escalated to the Customer Complaints Resolution team at DVLA because I have no confidence in the data release team to take such a complaint seriously, as it's in the public domain that they have dismissed these issues far too many times recently without so much as even supplying a copy of the DVLA complaints procedure leaflet.

If my complaint is not resolved properly I will involve my MP and refer the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Kind regards,

DollyPeach

Thank you everyone for your help - I would definitely be lost without you.

As no one has raised any issues with what I posted above I'm presuming that it's OK to send.

I will send it now and let you know the outcome.

Thanks again. You are all much appreciated.

DollyPeach

So after attempting to deny me the right to appeal as keeper, I sent the above response to the PCN Admin, BPA and DVLA. I got this email response this morning and attached is a denial of appeal along with a POPLA code.

"Good Morning,

Thank you for your recent email.

Please be advised that we have been instructed on behalf of our client to pursue this outstanding parking charge notice (PCN).

We are not relying on POFA 2012 to pursue this parking charge notice.

After looking at the previous email sent, we apologise for the information given. It is incorrect information given that you, as the registered keeper are unable to appeal.

After carefully considering your appeal, we have rejected your appeal and the basis of the rejection can be found within the appeal rejection letter. If you wish to appeal further, please follow the instructions within the letter."

Basically the reason is that the paid parking was over by 11 minutes!

So I guess now what I do is formulate the POPLA appeal.

I shall post it here before sending it so that you can let me know if I have done something to screw up.

Thanks again all.

nosferatu1001

Yes, easy POPLA appeal as KEEPER

Simple win, as they cannot show the Keeper has any liability. Add in grace periods as well.

DollyPeach

There was no mention of keeper liability or POFA in my NtK.

http://imgur dot com/rmrYpkC (front)
http://imgur dot com/FuhYf0U (back)

I looked for posts regarding grace charges but none of them seemed to apply to my situation as there was a ticket purchased and a photo of the ticket stating the time purchased and the expiry. Do I need to add the fact that they tried to deny me the right to appeal as keeper, or is all of this below enough to get a favourable decision?

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxx


I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge of £124 issued by PCN Admin Centre:

1) PCN Admin Centre's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority

4) No Contract was entered into between the PCN Admin Centre and the Driver or Registered keeper

5) 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



1) PCN Admin Centre's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

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 must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. PCN Admin Centre have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

The notice must be given by:

a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:
’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’.

The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices (never actually posted on that day, as is well known) showing a ‘date issued’ of 08/08/2017. This is over eight weeks after the alleged event, shown as 12/06/2017.

This means that PCN Admin Centre have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period. Furthermore, it is clear that PCN Admin Centre know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one that has no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA on either the front or the back of the Parking Charge Notice/NTK .

So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver. The driver has never been admitted and there is no evidence as to the identity of that individual, which brings me to point #2:


2) 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.''

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority

As PCN Admin Centre does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what PCN Admin Centre is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

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


4) No Contract was entered into between the PCN Admin Centre and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. PCN Admin Centre clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of PCN Admin Centre to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require PCN Admin Centre to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that PCN Admin Centre provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

5) 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

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

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. 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

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency'

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Yours faithfully

nosferatu1001

You've failed to mention that they dint invoke pofa at all. That's your real first point. They even confirm it in their rejection! Then you say even if popla tries to use pofa it fails because....

They state they font use pofa. Pofa is the only means gif a keeper to be liable. Popla MUST uphold your appeal.