Tower Road Newquay - no NTK

Coupon-mad

Kaloki wrote: »

Of course if I'd have seen this prior to my cornwall holiday I would have avoided it like it was radioactive.

That's what we do (avoiding ANY ParkingEye car park including Aldi, Asda and Morrisons), as does any previous victim, and the local Newquay MP Steve Double, who called private parking firms ''cowboys'' in Parliament:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/parliament-discuss-unfair-parking.html

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-21/debates/382789C8-0168-4C4B-8260-0540AF83C7D3/DVLAAndPrivateCarParkingCompanies

Add your feelings by email to Steve Double, so he gathers more complaints. It's important, as there is a new Bill coming up in 2018 which is meant to rein in the worst/most misleading 'offences' and 'scams' of this despicable industry.

What September date does the liability letter say was on the Notice to Keeper?

Here you need to say that this 'letter' was a 'liability notice' and explain more, maybe like this:

No Parking Charge Notice was issued to us prior to the sudden 'liability letter' dated 10th October 2017, which arrived out of the blue, referring to a purported 'PCN' which ParkingEye say was dated xx/09/17 but no such PCN was ever served. I put the operator to strict proof of when this purported NTK was actually posted, according to their records which must exist if such a letter entered the mailing system.

Absent such proof, my point that no NTK was ever served in time (or at all, in fact) is deemed correct and proven sufficiently on the balance of probabilities, so POPLA will not be able to find that any PCN was 'properly given'.

Kaloki

[QUOTE=Coupon-mad;73371914What September date does the liability letter say was on the Notice to Keeper?[/QUOTE]

No September date mentioned at all by parking eye! The only dates are the day we parked - 31st august, and the day the letter we received was dated - 10th october.

Kaloki

Umkomaas wrote: »

No Keeper Liability - you need to require PE to show proof of posting to POPLA if they are to argue they had previously sent a compliant NtK within the prescribed timescale. You also need to mention that they have had issues with the late delivery of NtKs - as reports in the public domain confirm.

On Grace Periods - don’t forget that PE will likely have documentary evidence of ANPR entry time and the time you entered your VRM into the ticket machine. They will have more actual evidence of times than you do just via your assertion.

But don’t forget that there is a minimum of 10 minutes in which to leave the car park also to factor in.

Also in your GPs section, is it Kevin or Kelvin?

Landowner Authority - you need to emphasise that a full, contemporaneous and unredacted contract is produced. Further, you have to more fully state why a witness statement (which PE produce template ‘fill in the spaces’ versions) is not acceptable to you, neither should it be to POPLA as there is no ‘audit trail’ back to the actual owner if the WS is just signed by a person whose status and authority is unclear.

There are a number of Tower Road POPLA cases in this link, so use that to navigate further and see if there are some ideas on how to really box this point off in your favour.


You seem to have the other key points covered, but I’ve not gone through them in any depth, so me not commenting on them doesn’t mean I’ve ‘signed them off’. Others may comment.

I'm just re-writing some of it now (hint: stealing what you/others have written). Changes should be reflected in my post in a minute.

The person mentioned is 'Kelvin' apparently.
I'll add back in the bit about the 10 minutes grace to leave. I didn't think it applied here, as my alleged contravention was prior to leaving. But you're right, worth putting in.

Coupon-mad

Kaloki wrote: »

No September date mentioned at all by parking eye! The only dates are the day we parked - 31st august, and the day the letter we received was dated - 10th october.

What about when you login to PE's website. It will state the Sept date of PCN.

I am looking for evidence of a late-posted version.

Kaloki

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What about when you login to PE's website. It will state the Sept date of PCN.

I am looking for evidence of a late-posted version.

Nope, nothing at all. Again only the date of event, and two pictures, entrance and exit, of the car park. Neither shows the driver either.

So hopefully they've shot themselves in the foot enough there to get this appeal through. I've not at any time stated who the driver was, as it wasn't me any way!

Kaloki

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameAmy Butler
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows; • The appellant states the parking charge does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant states the operator has not applied a reasonable grace period. • The appellant states there is adequate signage. • The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges from the landowner. • The appellant has provided evidence of a pay by phone session for the date in question. From this, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle was registered against a stay for three hours at 15:57.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, “Parking tariffs apply between 8am-11pm, 7 days a week; Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle,, entered the site on 31 August 2017 at 15:23 and exited the site at 18:56. The appellant remained at the site for a period of three hours and 32 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of the system print out. This is an online transaction record showing a search for the appellant’s vehicle. From this, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle was registered against a payment at 15:57 for a three hour stay. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I will address each of these below. The appellant states the parking charge does not comply with PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that it complies with the relevant requirements of the PoFA 2012. As such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states the operator has not applied a reasonable grace period. In relation to grace periods, Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice”. Upon review of the evidence I can see that the appellant entered the car park at 15:23, and purchased their ticket at 15:57. I am not satisfied that 24 minutes is classed as a reasonable grace period. The appellant states there is adequate signage. In response to this section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Based on the photographic evidence provided by the operator I am satisfied that it is both clear and conspicuous that upon entry to the site the appellant would have been able to establish that there was signage. Within the evidence pack the operator provided a site map, setting out the signs located around the car park, I am satisfied that there is ample signage for the appellant to be informed that a contract is being entered into. The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges from the landowner. I have reviewed the witness statement provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the operator has authorisation from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the site. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

As the Notice to Keeper was received on the 10th October 2017, and the date of event listed is 31st August 2017, that period of 14 days had long elapsed, and thus renders ParkingEye in contravention of the BPA Code of Practice and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


No Parking Charge Notice was issued to us prior to the sudden 'liability letter' dated 10th October 2017, which arrived out of the blue, referring to a purported 'PCN' which ParkingEye alludes to, but does not provide any date for, as no such PCN was ever served. I put the operator to strict proof of when this purported NTK was actually posted, according to their records which must exist if such a letter entered the mailing system.

Did they produce either the original NtK (if it ever existed) or the proof of posting it (as you requested above) within their evidence pack they produced for you and POPLA following the submission of your POPLA appeal?

Did you receive a copy of their evidence pack?

Did you comment on it to POPLA?

Kaloki

They produced the original NtK in the evidence pack. But no proof of posting. POPLA of course ignored this.

Sadly, I could not comment on the evidence as I was rushed to hospital and in for ages, and completely missed my window of oppertunity.

I guess I wait for a court date now?

Umkomaas

They produced the original NtK in the evidence pack.

And was it a PoFA-compliant one, i.e. one that was dated as such as to be presumed to have been delivered within 15 days after the parking event? Did it contain the PoFA paragraph on the reverse ‘if after 29 days .......’?

I guess I wait for a court date now?

There’s no guarantee this will automatically follow. However we have seen in this past week one Tower Road case being issued with court papers (have a look for it, probably somewhere within the first 3 pages of thread listings) and follow developments on that as you wait to see what happens with your case.

Should it proceed to court, you need to get a clear understanding of the BPA Code of Practice Grace Periods and whether the 24 minutes from entry to payment can be explained and fitted into that first GP of ‘a reasonable amount of time to find a space etc, etc’.

Kaloki

Umkomaas wrote: »

And was it a PoFA-compliant one, i.e. one that was dated as such as to be presumed to have been delivered within 15 days after the parking event? Did it contain the PoFA paragraph on the reverse ‘if after 29 days .......’?

Yes, it was compliant. We still didn't receive it or the following letter, but POPLA didn't care. But then I didn't expect much. Maybe a judge will, but who knows.

There’s no guarantee this will automatically follow. However we have seen in this past week one Tower Road case being issued with court papers (have a look for it, probably somewhere within the first 3 pages of thread listings) and follow developments on that as you wait to see what happens with your case.

Should it proceed to court, you need to get a clear understanding of the BPA Code of Practice Grace Periods and whether the 24 minutes from entry to payment can be explained and fitted into that first GP of ‘a reasonable amount of time to find a space etc, etc’.

I'm considering my next actions regarding this. But for now I'll wait and see what happens. I'm not ruling out fighting, or attempting to settle. It depends how I'm doing physically, mentally and financially closer to the time if it happens at all.