POPLA appeal help please - deadline 21.12.2017

LER9879

Hello,
I am new to the forum but have read the NEWBIES thread and followed advice therein.
My parking charge notice relates to overstaying a time limit by approx 28 minutes.
A complaint has been issued to the store visited which they are investigating but not yet resolved.
I lodged first stage appeal to the PPC which was refused as expected.
I am now onto the POPLA stage. Whilst I am obviously hopeful that the store might be able to cancel the PCN for me, I am conscious that my POPLA deadline is approaching and so I thought best to prepare that in readiness just in case.

I have unashamedly copied and pasted most of the content from other threads but have added in some detail on signage and amended as appropriate to my case.

I'm not sure how to attach stuff here so just copy and paste my draft below. I would be most grateful if one of the regulars could cast an eye over it and let me have any pointers. I have photographs of the signage - let me know if you want to see it and/or if I should submit those with my POPLA appeal.

Thank you in advance for your help and your time.

LER9879

************************************
FIRST DRAFT POPLA APPEAL
************************************


POPLA Ref:
Total Parking Solutions PCN No:

A notice to keeper was issued on <date> and received by me, the registered keeper of <reg> for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at <location>. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

1) Keeper Liability not established - Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates
[I’m not sure if this applies in my case, can someone please advise?]

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

3) 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

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

5) ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

6) No Contract was entered into between the TPS and the driver or registered keeper


1. Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 due to 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. TPS have failed to fulfill 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/NTK sent to me as registered keeper shows a purported ‘issue date’ of 07/11/2017 however the envelope in which the PCN arrived is dated 09/11/2017 and sent by 2nd class with Royal Mail. The Royal Mail website makes clear that 2nd class post is aimed to be delivered within 3 working days (including Saturdays). Therefore, a letter posted by 2nd class post on 09/11/2017 is not likely to have been delivered until Monday 13/11/2017.
There is no guarantee that the letter would be delivered within the ‘relevant period’ under paragraph 9(4)(b).

I put TPS to strict proof that the NTK was delivered to the keeper within the ‘relevant period’ as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).


This brings me to a second point:

The registered keeper is submitting this appeal and TPS do not have the identity of the driver.

TPS has failed to comply with the following requirements of the Act and consequently cannot rely on its provisions for keeper liability:

''9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.''

As TPS has failed to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act cited above, the registered keeper cannot be liable for the charge. The operator can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver and there is no lawful way I can be held liable as registered keeper.



2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the operator 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.

Furthermore, 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.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against TPS 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.''

LER9879

3. 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 'TPS 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:


[THIS LINK IN THE TEMPLATE DOESN’T WORK – SO I PLAN TO TAKE IT OUT UNLESS IM ADVISED OTHERWISE] (I had to separate it out because the site won't let me post links?)

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:

[link removed]
[AGAIN, THIS LINK DOESN’T WORK FOR ME?! – SO I PLAN TO TAKE IT OUT UNLESS IM ADVISED OTHERWISE]


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:

archive mozilla . [link removed]
[AGAIN, THIS LINK DOESN’T WORK FOR ME – SO I PLAN TO TAKE IT OUT UNLESS IM ADVISED OTHERWISE]


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

signazon [link removed]

''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:

ebay [link removed]

''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:

bailii [link removed]

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.



Additionally, there is nothing about VRNs being captured by ANPR at the point of entry; nothing about how the ANPR data will be used to add unknown 'overstay' time to allowed parking time.

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the TPS signs are impossible to read whilst driving along the access roads, particularly when the driver is required to concentrate on driving in this car park with relatively little room for manoeuver and sharp turns.

Furthermore, there are no signs placed on or near the pedestrian walkways and zebra crossings which exist for pedestrians to use to walk from their car to the store. The driver used these walkways and did not at any time see a sign. There are no signs immediately outside the stores which customers invariably enter.

By contrast, the signs which appear in the disabled bays in this car park are much more visible, with bright yellow background and large lettering and are at eye-level height.


4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice


No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator 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 this operator 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



5. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

I require TPS to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that TPS must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in PrivateEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require TPS in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


6. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye 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. TPS 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 TPS 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 TPS 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. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

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 TPS 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.

Quentin

You are using POFA arguments???


Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving


You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you!

LER9879

I haven’t disclosed who was driving at any point. If you think any part of my original post indicates otherwise please let me know which part.
Many thanks

Castle

LER9879 wrote: »

I haven’t disclosed who was driving at any point. If you think any part of my original post indicates otherwise please let me know which part.
Many thanks

Third line down of your original post.

TreesRgood

This was a store car park and my bet this is your best route is via the store.
I have found the appeal and POPLA processes a complete farce, though I admit I have never gone in to your impressive detail. It is in their interests not to allow your appeals and I have had rock solid appeals refused with effectively no explanation.
The store though has an interest in keeping you as a customer, indeed as treating you as a valued customer. If you feel mistreated it is them, not the parking company who suffer.
The store has the power to cancel the charge and an incentive to keep you happy. Put as much thought and effort in to that and I reckon you'll probably be okay.

Quentin

LER9879 wrote: »

I haven’t disclosed who was driving at any point. If you think any part of my original post indicates otherwise please let me know which part.
Many thanks

Read it again. Can you work out who was driving???

Quentin

TreesRgood wrote: »

This was a store car park and my bet this is your best route is via the store.
I have found the appeal and POPLA processes a complete farce, though I admit I have never gone in to your impressive detail. It is in their interests not to allow your appeals and I have had rock solid appeals refused with effectively no explanation.
The store though has an interest in keeping you as a customer, indeed as treating you as a valued customer. If you feel mistreated it is them, not the parking company who suffer.
The store has the power to cancel the charge and an incentive to keep you happy. Put as much thought and effort in to that and I reckon you'll probably be okay.

Popla appeals do succeed.! See the thread full of successes!

Coupon-mad

1) Keeper Liability not established - Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates
[I’m not sure if this applies in my case, can someone please advise?]

Well you must be sure if you are saying 'due to the dates'? You know the dates involved.

It's not difficult to calculate the dates. Read Schedule 4 of the POFA. Also check the wording of the PCN as to whether it gives the right warning from 9(2)f of the Schedule, assuming this was a postal PCN.

LER9879

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well you must be sure if you are saying 'due to the dates'? You know the dates involved.

It's not difficult to calculate the dates. Read Schedule 4 of the POFA. Also check the wording of the PCN as to whether it gives the right warning from 9(2)f of the Schedule, assuming this was a postal PCN.

Regarding the dates - the reason I'm not sure is because the PCN was issued within 14 days but I kept the envelope it came in which was stamped as being posted 2 days later. Still within the 14 days but using 2nd class post which means it could have arrived on the 14th day (a Saturday) or the 16th day (a Monday). I honestly cannot remember which day it arrived and didn't start looking at these forums until later on.

All the draft appeals that I saw on this point appeared to raise the fact that the PCN itself was issued after 14 days, whereas I am relying on date of delivery, which I haven't seen elsewhere so I wasn't sure whether this is arguable.

An extract from the narrative which fleshes out this point in my appeal goes:
"The Parking Charge Notice/NTK sent to me as registered keeper shows a purported ‘issue date’ of 07/11/2017 however the envelope in which the PCN arrived is dated 09/11/2017 and sent by 2nd class with Royal Mail. The Royal Mail website makes clear that 2nd class post is aimed to be delivered within 3 working days (including Saturdays). Therefore, a letter posted by 2nd class post on 09/11/2017 is not likely to have been delivered until Monday 13/11/2017.
There is no guarantee that the letter would be delivered within the ‘relevant period’ under paragraph 9(4)(b).
I put TPS to strict proof that the NTK was delivered to the keeper within the ‘relevant period’ as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). "