Land owner changed since PCN of 4 months ago

Coupon-mad

You are not doing it today. You are still working on it. Today is NOT the deadline.

Silversurreal

Ok CM I accept I may not complete today but want to fine tune it, if I have missed key points!

Is the point you're talking about the appellant not shown to be the driver THE INSERTED TEXT? see below

and should it go here? I dont understand what points # 1 to # 4 are? I am appealing on 4 points, I am a novice at this! Is there a longer schedule that I should be inserting, believe me I have read numerous appeals etc in the newbies



1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

No “notice to keeper received” therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.

Silversurreal

If you are referring to these 2 key points, I can add them, but where?


1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
2) Smart Parking has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

Silversurreal

It's a real minefield and Mr of Mrs Average wouldn't stand a chance without advice, so this MSE board is invaluable BUT it's not easy to do the first time. I guess when I've done a few, I'll be an old pro too, but at the moment I'm just another "lost Newbie" Thanks to you all, I hope to at least get my appeal approved today and live tomorrow! Cheers Julia

Coupon-mad

The start of your appeal says this:

POPLA Verification Code - xxxxxxxx

PCN Ref: xxxxxxx - SMART PARKING

Location - Former site of Poundstretcher UK Gateway 11 Wymondham NR18 0WF

PCN recorded via ANPR dated 04/12/17 Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18 (Escalated to debt recovery with no prior knowledge of charge)


As the registered keeper of xxxxxxxxxx

3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

Soooo...what's missing, glaringly obviously missing at the start there?

Silversurreal

I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN! Sorry where were points 1 and 2 indeed? I copied it all, very strange to miss a bit out of the middle! anyway draft to follow!

Silversurreal

Images not copied for some reason but they are included in the Pdf file in the same format,

I'm not sure about the threats to MP and local media, what do you think! The more I read what I've wrote the more angry I get about this situation and others like it. It really has to be stamped out!



POPLA Verification Code – xxxxxx

PCN Ref - xxxxxxx - SMART PARKING

Location - Former site of Poundstretcher UK Gateway 11 Wymondham NR18 0WF

PCN recorded via ANPR dated 04/12/17 Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18 (Escalated to debt recovery with no prior knowledge of charge)


As the registered keeper of xxxxx I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds


1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2&5) POFA 2012

2. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority


1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

No “notice to keeper received” therefore not compliant with POFA 2012.
As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA has been made available to me as Registered Keeper the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Therefore there can be no keeper liability and as a result I request that this charge be considered non valid.




The first correspondence to the keeper (confirmed correct DVLA address) was in the form of an unpaid demand of £160 received from DEBT RECOVERY PLUS (post dated 22/03/18) The keeper was informed that the alleged infringement of a 15 minute over stay in a 90 minute free stay car park; occurred on 4/12/17 (108 days prior to first contact) and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by well before this duration


It was claimed a PCN had been issued and ignored by DRP, but on contacting SMART PARKING about no formal “notice to keeper” having ever being received as stipulated in POFA 2012. They wrote to keeper with no reply of whether they had sent or not sent a PCN . At this moment it is doubtful they actually issued a PCN between the alleged date of 04/12/17 and DRPs demand letter on 22/03/18 and that they seem to have just escalated the charge to Debt recovery. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that did omit to notify sender with a PCN there no apology or explanation in their response. They offered to extend the "discounted period". They quoted " please note we have reinstated the discount period until the 02/05/18" but there was no mention or inkling of the amount they were putting forward or asking for (originally or now)! DRP's initial demand was for £160 with their debt recovery charges added as standard, but no mention ever of original charge as SMART PARKING never contacted keeper. So the so called discounted charge amount remains undisclosed and unknown.

2. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver

There are no signs from Smart Parking displayed at the entrance to the car park. The sign was not in place on this occasion, (maybe due to store closing down and the supposed future development by new owner of this plot of the Gateway 11) The Poundstretcher store no longer stands and the car park is currently being redeveoped for a location of a new Lidl store. If a sign had been on site at this time, it wouldn't have been seen at on a dark December evening in this iscolated location..
Further more there is/was only one store situated on this car park. The store is located off a busy dual carriageway, with no other shops close by and one mile to the town centre. Hence there is no other reason to use this car park other than for customers of Poundstretcher/Pets at Home.
I would also bring into question the authenticity and clarity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps which even magnified are difficult to reasonably determine. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. The stated over stay is 15 minutes if the details are correct! I reiterate the times on both images are not clear to the human eye.

ANPR Images taken directly from SMART PARKING online. Illegible times of entrance and exit!








Entrance Exit

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand.


3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator




In their correspondence of 17/04/18 SMART PARKING state "We wish to confirm there is sufficient time allowed for drivers to return to their vehicle and exit the car park, however the maximum free time is calculated from entrance to exit and must be adhered to at all times" Their time limit is 90 minutes total, no allowance for getting to and from vehicle to store, finding a parking space, carrying shopping to car or loading trolley packing car or negotiating traffic and pedestrians. So therefore their argument that their 90 minute rule allows for any such "grace time" is absurd!

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:

“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”


The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in .13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unreduced copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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).


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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal 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 in the agreement


Proof of purchase from aforementioned store at this date/time
The date can clearly be read on image # 1. The second image #2 (full till receipt) is shown just to demonstrate how genuine shoppers are being penalised by these unscrupulous car park operaters. I am adding my name to a petition to take to the movement in government currently ongoing, as this should not be allowed to continue. I’ll also be writing to my local MP and possibly writing an article for local press. This has to be stamped out, in this financial climate, the UK wants to encourage comsumer spending, not prevent shoppers driving out to remote locations and receiving penalties for their efforts to keep the economy going. The way the future is looking. Everyone will purchase online and more and more busnesses will be forced to close – as in the case of the store involved on this occasion!











The contravention was during Poundstretchers final weeks of their closing down sale leading up to final closure at Christmas. The business at this location has now ceased. It is unknown who actually owns the land. Lidl has since taken over the plot from Poundstretcher. It is unclear if change of landowner has occurred. Search for current landowner online has been fruitless.
I ask in all sincerity that you cancel this charge of £160 – assumably. (Amount unknown because the PCN has never issued any amount to keeper initially or subsequentially) Many thanks and look forward to your thoughts and hopefully an agreeable resolution!

Sincerely xxxxxx

Coupon-mad

Keeper not informed until demand letter from Debt Recovery Plus dated 22/03/18

Just checking, did you send your details to Steve Clark at the BPA for his dossier on Smart Parking going straight to debt letters, that we are pressing people to add to?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74269821#Comment_74269821

If not, email him and ask that your case joins the dossier mentioned on MSE:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

In your appeal, in #4 you have 'unreduced' but it should read 'unredacted'.


Shouldn't this be numbered #5? Typos here as well:

Proof of purchase from aforementioned store at this date/time

The date can clearly be read on image # 1. The second image #2 (full till receipt) is shown just to demonstrate how genuine shoppers are being penalised by these unscrupulous car park operators [STRIKE]operaters[/STRIKE]. Whilst the driver's identity will not be divulged, as registered keeper I have complained to Steve Clark at the BPA to add to his dossier about Smart Parking routinely going straight to debt collector stage with no NTK posted, and I am adding my name to a petition...

Silversurreal

Lol as I was copying that bit from you I noticed that but spellchecker refused to accept unredacted, (still does) so had to take a wild guess on what it was, oh dear. I'll make necessary adjustments. I am correcting lots of little things, grammar etc and adding extra oomph as we speak. Anything can be improved! Eventually I'm just going to have to stop adding to and correcting it and just send it in :jasap please I wanna jump over that hurdle!!!!!! ;-)

Silversurreal

All correct and in order now :-) I'll post later. But is there anything important I have missed with the legal bit. As far as I know I've added all the facts!

Are you saying Coupon Mad that I add a point of contest #5 as till receipt adding wight to my appeal? I'm not sure what you mean! ;-)