Parking ticketing limited appeal

Sami2me

on the back it says you should appeal within 28days from the letter date to
parkingcslcouk/appeals or by email enquiriesatparkingcsl...

Not sure is better to use their online form or send an email ?

KeithP

Sami2me wrote: »

Not sure is better to use their online form or send an email ?

Read the guidance offered in BOLD CAPITALS immediately below the blue template appeal text in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and make your decision.

All the information is there - you need to decide.

Sami2me

They have now refused to cancel the charge of £120 (thought it goes up to £100) and provided popla code, they don't seem to be happy about copy and paste appeal template letter.

What is next step now, is there another templetate to send to popla ?
Will going back to the site and taking photos and video of signage help ?

KeithP

Sami2me wrote: »

What is next step now, is there another templetate to send to popla ?

The next step is to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will find guidance on preparing a PoPLA appeal.

Sami2me wrote: »

Will going back to the site and taking photos and video of signage help ?

Yes.

Sami2me

Thank you KeithP I have been looking at various different appeals in the sticky post n3 and put some paragraphs together and will include the following points as feel they apply to this case: 1 The signs in this car park, 2 I was not the driver at the time, 3 No evidence of Landowner Authority.
I will also go back to the site and photograph signs at the entrance and around the unmarked parking bays

are these enough do you think ?

another question why do i have to go to all the details if i was not the driver at the time ? just asking

Umkomaas

You need to include their failure to comply with PoFA requirements as per Castle's advice in post #11.

Umkomaas

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

Push this up the batting order to be appeal point #2 to follow 'No keeper liability', it's a natural follow-on.

The increase to £120 means that the NTK fails to repeat the information on the NTD; and therefore, they have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA

I think you should just expand this a bit, not just leave it as a 'header'.

Number each appeal header, then put a bullet point list of headers at the top of the appeal.

Sami2me

Went to the place to take photos of their signage and guess what to my surprise the place is full of brand new signs every where not too high as before and within short distance between them.
it was not like this before appealing to them so now I can't provide photos of the signage, they also didn't provide photos of their signage as requested in the appeal letter,

will it still be ok to proceed to popla without them ?

Coupon-mad

Obviously!

And you can add to your 'unclear signs' point saying the signs have changed very recently (NOT using words like 'I went back' or 'since I was there'!). Since the signs have changed it shows the previous ones were insufficient and you can ask for the date of the changed signs and why they were changed, and the last BPA audit of the old signs.

Sami2me

appeal letter converted to pdf and now is uploaded to popla can someone please double check if any spotted errors or mistakes, i have chosen other ground of appeal last at the bottom ?

POPLA appeal verification code: xxxxxxxxx

Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxx
POPLA verification code: xxxxxxxxx


I, registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxxxxxxxx
as a notice to registered keeper from Parking Collection Services on behalf of parking ticketing limited demanding a payment of £120.
My appeal to the operator (parking collection services) was submitted in line with their instruction on the back of the letter and acknowledged on xxxxxxxxx
but was rejected on xxxxxxxxx
.
I contend, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1.The increase to £120 means that the NTK fails to repeat the information on the NTD; and therefore, they have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA

Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
!!!8226; Which car the ticket relates to
!!!8226; What land the car was parked on
!!!8226; The period the car was parked
!!!8226; Advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and the amount and that it has not been paid in full
!!!8226; State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when
!!!8226; Specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and of the dispute resolution arrangements
!!!8226; Invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if he was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver
!!!8226; Identify the !!!8220;creditor!!!8221; who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge
!!!8226; Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that !!!8220;creditor!!!8221; will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.
!!!8226; Details of the discount for payment within 14 days, The Discount should be at least 40% of the full charge under the BPA Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only)
!!!8226; Date of the notice
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered either
1. (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or
2. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked
A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose !!!8220;working day!!!8221; means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
The notice to keeper must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed in Regulations made under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As at February 2013 no such Regulations have been made.
If a Notice to Keeper has been issued and the PPC knows who the driver is then the PPC may have improperly obtained the registered keeper details from the DVLA.


2.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

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.
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

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
(the signs have changed very recently, when they were changed ? Why they were changed ? when was the last BPA audit of the old signs ?

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

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 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
.


4.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 - 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).

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 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 to the agreement


I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.