Do i need to name the driver of the vehicle to appeal parking charge notice

sparkles100

Kirchenmaus wrote: »

Sounds good to me! Were they under the impression that you were appealing as the driver? Was this a windscreen ticket you appealed as the RK, or was it a PCN sent to the RK after they got your details from the DVLA?

No, you don't have to name the driver, but it is generally helpful to deny being the driver (assuming that was the case).

Just tell them you're appealing as the RK, you won't be naming the driver, and to give you the POPLA code or foxtrot romeo oscar.

--Kirchenmaus

I appealed from the notice left on windscreen as I saw they were a BPA member so followed advice on website to put in appeal rather than ignore.


I haven't said who was the driver to them, I started my letter with saying the parking ticket was issued unfairly and unlawfully and that I declined to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I then stated I would not be paying the demand for the following reasons - then I outlined why I wouldn't be paying.


I had previously read not to state who the driver was whether it was me or not. As mentioned I was under impression I don't have to reveal this to them in order to appeal the parking charge.


I am going to email BPA and DVLA to see where I stand with this as they are being so awkward

beamerguy

sparkles100 wrote: »

I appealed from the notice left on windscreen as I saw they were a BPA member so followed advice on website to put in appeal rather than ignore.


I haven't said who was the driver to them, I started my letter with saying the parking ticket was issued unfairly and unlawfully and that I declined to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I then stated I would not be paying the demand for the following reasons - then I outlined why I wouldn't be paying.


I had previously read not to state who the driver was whether it was me or not. As mentioned I was under impression I don't have to reveal this to them in order to appeal the parking charge.


I am going to email BPA and DVLA to see where I stand with this as they are being so awkward

AWKWARD .. NO ...... LYING YES

The complaint must be that they are attempting to deny
your legal right with misleading information

beamerguy

Kirchenmaus wrote: »

Sounds good to me! Were they under the impression that you were appealing as the driver?

NO, they said

"f you fail to provide the drivers details then the appeal cannot be processed and we will pursue the keeper of the vehicle."

You will have already seen on this forum that some
parking cowboys try on this wheeze

sparkles100

thanks all for your help. I haven't replied to their email and have emailed DVLA and BPA with a lengthy email outlining all the issues and that they are providing misleading information and denying my right to appeal. I have advised DVLA and BPA that I have not emailed them back and that I will await their response on the matter. Hopefully they will help me :-)

Quentin

sparkles100 wrote: »

I appealed from the notice left on windscreen as I saw they were a BPA member so followed advice on website to put in appeal rather than ignore.

All good


No need for further contact over your appeal


Just be patient and a POPLA code will follow!

sparkles100

beamerguy wrote: »

NO, they said

"f you fail to provide the drivers details then the appeal cannot be processed and we will pursue the keeper of the vehicle."

You will have already seen on this forum that some
parking cowboys try on this wheeze

Quentin wrote: »

All good


No need for further contact over your appeal


Just be patient and a POPLA code will follow!

thank you, I hope this gets resolved soon :-)

Coupon-mad

sparkles100 wrote: »

thanks all for your help. I haven't replied to their email and have emailed DVLA and BPA with a lengthy email outlining all the issues and that they are providing misleading information and denying my right to appeal. I have advised DVLA and BPA that I have not emailed them back and that I will await their response on the matter. Hopefully they will help me :-)

Good, yes it should help. PPCs are not allowed to say:

"if you fail to provide the drivers details then the appeal cannot be processed and we will pursue the keeper of the vehicle."

Look:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73728604#Comment_73728604

See the instructions that the BPA have forgotten (and need reminding) that they issued in 2014.

If you get J or T or any other person at the BPA fobbing you off, point them to this thread and ask that the matter is escalated to Steve Clark. He sorts things out but they all seem to forget previous promises & policies too easily, IMHO. Some of us just don't forget stuff we read!

e.g. @the BPA, whatever happened to the clear decision to change the minimum 'ten minutes grace' to eleven minutes grace - decided at a meeting in 2015? Did ParkingEye veto it or something, due to the commercial impact...?

Kirchenmaus

beamerguy wrote: »

NO, they said

"f you fail to provide the drivers details then the appeal cannot be processed and we will pursue the keeper of the vehicle."

You will have already seen on this forum that some
parking cowboys try on this wheeze

Sorry, I meant "good", as in, that's obviously fine with the OP; indeed, it is exactly what he/she has requested.

--Kirchenmaus

Loadsofchildren123

sparkles100 wrote: »

should i be emailing back to them and saying that i am not obligated to provide driver and have a right to appeal as the keeper of the vehicle? As i have already been in contact with them on email i don't want them to be able to use me not responding against me. Or should i just go straight to the BPA and hopefully they will deal with it?

I can see you've complained, but personally I would also write to the PPC and point out that they are completely wrong, and tell them you've complained. to BPA/DVLA.

sparkles100

Hi all





so I finally have my POPLA code which they sent to me through the post.

Please can anyone help with my POPLA appeal now? I have been reading the newbies thread, popla decisions and also what I think is the sticky section but I am getting confused with whether I should be putting in law legislation into my appeal and which ones actually apply.


I have not named the driver and I am appealing as vehicle keeper. The parking charge notice is for parking on what is supposedly private land which requires a permit. However they have stated on the ticket I parked in a place that is actually a pedestrian walk way and not the name of the street the car was parked on. Also they are saying there was sufficient signage, when in actual fact there was one sign behind, to the left of the car which was high up on the wall. This wasn't spotted on getting out of the car as it was reversed parked. There were no parking bays either and plenty of cars parked so did not see that area was restricted. The one image they have taken of the sign shows only 'permit holders only' in bigger writing but the rest of the terms is in very small writing. I read in the newbies about size of writing so wondered if there was a case I should quote here? I found the thread a little confusing, sorry :-(. I can put a picture up of this but wasn't sure whether to or not?


Below is a rough draft of what I started, any help would be much appreciated:




I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and my appeal is regarding a parking ticket unlawfully and unfairly issued where the car was parked for less than five minutes in an area that was believed to be fine to park. The reasons for the appeal are the following:

• Incorrect detail on notice

Firstly the parking attendant has referenced that the car location was !!!8216;Victoria Passage, Stourbridge!!!8217; on the notice. Victoria Passage is a pedestrian walkway in which there are bollards at the front of this walk way to prevent cars entering so the car could not have been parked there. The parking ticket is stating that the car was parked in Victoria Passage, Stourbridge, when the car was in fact parked in Talbot Street therefore meaning they had no authority to issue a ticket. Elite Management (midlands) LTD have no proof of the car being parked in Victoria passage and ignored my request in my appeal to prove that the car was parked in Victoria passage. I however, provided them Google images of the street that the car was parked in was shown as Talbot street and Victoria passage was shown as a pedestrian walkway between buildings. It is stated in Elite Management (midlands) LTD rejection letter that my appeal has been rejected as there was unauthorised parking on the day in question yet they have put on the parking charge notice that the car was parked in Victoria Passageway when this would not have been possible and the car was in fact in Talbot Street.

• Lack of Signage and inadequate signage

There were no signs on entry to the street and no visible signs in front or to the side of the car, where the car was parked. On return to the parked car the ticket was seen on the window screen and only then was a sign for parking restrictions spotted which was one sign, high up on the wall behind the car, over to the left side of the car so was not directly behind the car either. (as seen in the angle of photo that was taken by parking attendant, the sign is high up on the wall and no sign directly behind the car!!!8211; see below). The car was reversed parked and has reverse cameras in the car to assist parking so no signs were spotted getting out of the car as there was no signs in front of the car or to the sides of the car as seen in photo evidence.

There was insufficient clear signage in the car park meaning that no contract could be formed with the landowner and the ticket was issued illegally. After seeing the ticket it was noted that there were plenty of other cars parked with no parking charges issued. Reason for issue of ticket is referenced as !!!8216;no permit!!!8217; yet other cars were not seen with permits and they had not been given a parking charge. There were no defined parking bays either and as no signs were visible on entry to the car it was believed that the car was fine to be parked on the side of the street. Elite Management (Midlands) LTD have referenced in their rejection letter that my appeal was declined as there is signage displayed around the site, yet from both their photo evidence and my own photo evidence it is clear there isn!!!8217;t signage displayed around the site so therefore it was unclear that the place the car was parked was restricted and there were also no bays to show restricted parking either. They were only able to take a photo of one sign and the rest of their photos are mainly focused on the car not showing the surrounding area as there are no visible signs. In my photos you can see that the surrounding area clearly shows lack of signage. Further to the lack of signage you can also see in the photo evidence that the writing regarding the charges for parking without permit are very small and therefore is not legible and as mentioned before is high up on the wall.The sign displayed does not meet the requirements for !!!8216;large lettering!!!8217; and prominence as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and therefore the small print terms are not readable or prominent.

• Unjustified loss

The amount that Elite Management (midlands) LTD are trying to charge is also not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to their company or the landowner. The car was only parked for a few minutes which would not result in a £60 or £100 loss. The trip was to pick up an item from a shop nearby Talbot street and therefore the car was parked on Talbot street as would only be there for a few minutes. Further to the fact that this would not have caused a £60/£100 loss, there was also a Waitrose Lorry trying to manoeuvre in another part of Talbot street when the car was left in Talbot street meaning that the street was actually blocked and cars could not pass. On return to the car the Waitrose lorry was still manoeuvring in Talbot Street meaning the road was still being blocked and therefore cars could not freely pass meaning that other drivers would not have been able to access any space on the side of Talbot street.