University PCN

mezzyd

A university is a member of BPA to manage parking across the campus & issues permits to staff & students. A permit holder has been issued a PCN as he parked outside a marked bay (says many bays were taken up by non permit holders, hence no legitimate spaces left). As the permit scheme requires students to specify a vehicle, I guess this will allow the university to already know the name of the driver? I am intending to follow the advice by appealing towards the end of the 28 day period, but should it still be as the keeper, bearing in mind they already know the identity of the driver? Any other hints for this scenario would be much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

As the permit scheme requires students to specify a vehicle, I guess this will allow the university to already know the name of the driver?

Nope, the driver could have been me/anyone(!) another student with that student, family member...

I am intending to follow the advice by appealing towards the end of the 28 day period, but should it still be as the keeper,

Yes, definitely.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

mezzyd

Thanks for the input so far. May I ask about the signs - is it acceptable for the signs to refer to other term & conditions (University Regulations for the Management of Traffic), without actually spelling them all out? Would this be a useful argument at POPLA?

Umkomaas

mezzyd wrote: »

Thanks for the input so far. May I ask about the signs - is it acceptable for the signs to refer to other term & conditions (University Regulations for the Management of Traffic), without actually spelling them all out? Would this be a useful argument at POPLA?

There's no prescribed wording for signs. What you are stating above doesn't invalidate the sign. It won't, of its own, be a showstopper at POPLA.

But signage is important as it is the purported contract with the driver, so rather than look for tiny loopholes, it's better to make an overall appraisal of the signs on site.

Please read the BPA Code of Practice to check out what is required - and size can matter! - read Section B18 of the main body, then Appendix B.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

Also read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 about how to develop a POPLA appeal, and in particular (for the purpose of assessing the Uni's signage), there is a large ready made signage appeal section where the signage arguments are made.

Coupon-mad

May I ask about the signs - is it acceptable for the signs to refer to other term & conditions (University Regulations for the Management of Traffic), without actually spelling them all out? Would this be a useful argument at POPLA?

That could be a useful argument at POPLA, yes, because it can't be assumed that the driver was someone who had ever been served with those other t&cs. No assumption can be made that the driver was a current student or staff member, could have been a family member, friend, or someone unconnected with the University, dropping something off, etc.

mezzyd

Thanks for that. Sorry to come back with further questions, but I feel this has to be handled quite carefully as the university is the landowner as well as the BPA operator & has the power to cancel the permit which will cause a lot of difficulty. As the regs say that permits are not transferable & students have to register one vehicle only, would refusing to name the driver be possibly seen as a breach of the regulations anyway?

With the initial appeal to the university, I am thinking I need to ask nicely for a cancellation based on too many non permit holders taking up the proper bays, meaning the driver had to park outside a marked bay (this was the contravention).

Then if this is refused, to go to POPLA with the normal questions over signs, plus deficiencies on the parking charge notice, plus arguing that this is a penalty - different to Beavis as no legitimate purpose (valid permit already held, purpose of parking enforcement declared as to deter non permit holders), manifestly excessive (increase in penalty by 133.33% last year, higher than LA tickets, aimed at students with little earning potential), not commercially justifiable (operator & landowner is an educational institution not profit-making company).

Any comments much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

As the regs say that permits are not transferable & students have to register one vehicle only, would refusing to name the driver be possibly seen as a breach of the regulations anyway?

No, not at all, honestly. A car with a student permit does not have to DRIVEN by that same student. The driver could have been a family member, friend, or someone unconnected with the University, dropping something off, etc. or simply another student sitting in the driver's seat, next to the permit-holding student and practising their parking on private land ready for a test. Could be anyone driving!

With the initial appeal to the university, I am thinking I need to ask nicely for a cancellation based on too many non permit holders taking up the proper bays, meaning the driver had to park outside a marked bay (this was the contravention).

Won't work, but if you like. As long as you never say who was driving.

Then if this is refused, to go to POPLA with the normal questions over signs, plus deficiencies on the parking charge notice, plus arguing that this is a penalty - different to Beavis as no legitimate purpose (valid permit already held, purpose of parking enforcement declared as to deter non permit holders), manifestly excessive (increase in penalty by 133.33% last year, higher than LA tickets, aimed at students with little earning potential), not commercially justifiable (operator & landowner is an educational institution not profit-making company).

OK, but your first point will be 'no keeper liability, no NTK was served' and you will be timing it to make sure you are safely past the 56 day point for them to serve one!

mezzyd

Have done the initial appeal as keeper, acknowledged by email which was signed off - "yours faithfully, Smart Parking". I was surprised as the Operator is the university, this is the first mention of Smart Parking, which is also on the BPA list.

I just wondered it anyone else has come across this sort of situation - it implies to me that there's a third party involved in the parking enforcement.?

Umkomaas

This could be an equivalent of a self ticketing operation. Likely to be the Uni's security people placing tickets on vehicles, taking a photo, then uploading the details to Smart Parking to contact the DVLA (if the initial charge hasn't been paid) for keeper details.

In your case it seems that Smart are providing the back office appeals process for your Uni.

Which University is this please?

mezzyd

University of Kent