ParkingEye LBCCC - sent to my old address

Coupon-mad

What are they trying to say here? That the "Golden ticket" POFA point is not valid?

Yes, they are trying but they will fail. They do this to worry people, and it's worked on you! They also hope somewhere you will slip up and say who was driving which will undo the whole appeal - but you won't do that.

You win.

Point out to POPLA why you win, just to give the Assessor a nudge in the right direction.

Of course, don't use 'golden ticket'...it's a forum phrase !

e231

I cannot believe this, My Popla appeal has been unsuccessful.

nosferatu1001

PLease provide full text of this!

e231

Yes of course!
---
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the signage at the site is not prominent clear or legible to forma contract with the driver. The appellant has advised that the operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site are “Tariffs Up to 1 hour £1.00. You can purchase additional time (if required) at the payment machines before leaving. Visitors to Taylors Bakery must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details into the terminal at reception to be entitled to free parking for the duration of their stay. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator issued a PCN due to either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. The site operates an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) System. The operator has provided photographic images of the appellants vehicle captured entering at 18:01, and exiting at 18:20. The photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle provided confirm that the appellant’s vehicle was on site for 19 minutes. The operator has also provided a system generated printout from this I can see a payment for parking was not registered against the appellant’s vehicle registration number. The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the signage at the site is not prominent clear or legible to forma contract with the driver. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant on the 06 July 2017, this was posted to the address held by the DVLA. The operator received communication on 03 September 2017 to say that the appellant no longer lived at the address. A new notice was sent to the address provided, I am satisfied that the operator has provided a Notice to Keeper that is compliant with PoFA 2012. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that the address held by the DVLA is kept up to date. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states, “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. I consider the site map and the photographic evidence provided by the operator to show that the it met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The appellant has advised that the operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a copy of a contract conforming it holds landowner authority, therefore I am satisfied that the operator does hold landowner authority. When parking on private land, a motorist forms a contract with the operator by parking their vehicle on the site. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the site. In this case, as the appellant has parked without making a payment for the full duration of parking, the terms and conditions of the contract have not been met. As such, I conclude that on this occasion the operator has issued the PCN correctly.
---
I do not think this is fair, the DVLA were sent for address amendments very quickly after the change of address, PE have unfortunately requested the details prior to the details being updated by DVLA and subsequently sent to the old address.

Argh, knew knew this wouldn't be straight forward

nosferatu1001

That is a bogus answer

No NtK was received by the Keeper within the timescales. This was proven by the operators own case!

e231

I'm glad you think so!

Obviously this whole thing is a massive inconvenience, but I am quite tempted to escalate this further and challenge the decision. Would love to hear what you guys think? I'm reluctant to just give in after all this effort!!

Obviously I will have PE gleefully harassing me with letters any time soon...

Umkomaas

You need to involve the POPLA Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher as the operator themselves are stating they are not pursuing under PoFA, so there is no Keeper Liability possible. The POPLA decision flies in the face of the Law, and is therefore unsafe.

A clear procedural error.

Coupon-mad

That MUST result in a complaint to John Gallagher, copying in Steve Clark (BPA) and David Dunford (DVLA).

Attach a copy of the front and back of the PCN and state that the Assessor has erred horrendously and in very basic terms re liability.

The Assessor has said:

I am satisfied that the operator has provided a Notice to Keeper that is compliant with PoFA 2012.

They were NOT entitled to make that finding. The PCN is a non-POFA one (Parking Eye having two types, and they've even admitted in their evidence pack that it's a non-POFA one) and this was clearly stated in the appeal and pointed out again in the comments on evidence.

DEMAND the decision is officially reversed or that Mr Gallagher himself apologises and emails to confirm the decision is wrong and that the Assessor has had the difference in wording explained to him/her, so no other keepers receive such a diabolically wrong decision on liability for a 3 month old, non-POFA postal PCN.

Call it a complaint 'about the POPLA process and service' and non-professional handling of the case.

complaints@popla.co.uk

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Don't write 'the decision was wrong and I want it reviewed/overturned' because they won't do that.

e231

Coupon-mad and Umkomaas, thank you so much for your insight on this, I am glad that you feel I should pursue this further!

I have used some of the excellent wording you have used, to construct this email, which I would be grateful to get your (hopefully) thumbs-up on!

---

Subject: Complaint about the POPLA process and service and non-professional handling of the case

Dear Mr Gallagher,

I write to you with reference to a Parking Charge Notification (PCN) that I received as the registered keeper from ParkingEye Ltd., on which I used the POPLA service to raise an appeal.

I wish to complain about the POPLA process and service and non-professional handling of the case.

The assessor of this has made an error in very basic terms with reference to liability. The assessor has stated:

“I am satisfied that the operator has provided a Notice to Keeper that is compliant with PoFA 2012”

However, they were not entitled to make that finding. As you will see in the attached scan of the PCN that was served to me, the PCN is a non-POFA one. This is evidenced in the evidence pack provided by Parking Eye Ltd, and it was clearly stated in the appeal and pointed out in the comments on the evidence.

I demand that the decision is officially reversed, or, that you apologise and confirm in email that the decision is wrong, and that the assessor has had the difference in POFA wording explained to him/her, such that no other registered keepers receive such diabolically wrong decision on liability for a 2-and-a-half-month old non-POFA postal PCN.

Yours sincerely,

KeithP

I would include your PoPLA code in that letter to Mr Gallagher.

Can you get that quote from PE's evidence pack:

Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case.

...in your letter? Thus demonstrating that PE weren't even trying to transfer liability to the keeper.