PCN @ Brentwood Station full payment made before noticing I had a ticket

Fruitcake

If this was a station car park, then I would have thought you would want a Byelaws, not relevant land point in there.

Your current point 1 is slightly wrong. The starting date for the 28/56 days timeframe is beginning with the day after that on which the NTD is given, not the day it is given. In other words, the date of the alleged event is day zero.
It may only appear to be a minor error, but you don't want the assessor throwing it out because you have incorrectly quoted the POFA timeframe, even if they have failed to meet it.

atanks

Fruitcake wrote: »

If this was a station car park, then I would have thought you would want a Byelaws, not relevant land point in there.

Will replace thanks

Your current point 1 is slightly wrong. The starting date for the 28/56 days timeframe is beginning with the day after that on which the NTD is given, not the day it is given. In other words, the date of the alleged event is day zero.
It may only appear to be a minor error, but you don't want the assessor throwing it out because you have incorrectly quoted the POFA timeframe, even if they have failed to meet it.

Thanks for clearing that up so ticket was given on 18/07 so post 12/09 is when that would be applicable correct?

Fruitcake

Add "byelaws-not relevant land". There is nothing to replace. It's one point.

I haven't checked dates. I'm just saying that if you are going to refer to The POFA, then you need to quote the exact wording.

atanks

Added, one final question before I submit I have not mentioned the previous fine being written off by NCP LTD for pretty much the same instance a week earlier is it wise to mention that?

Also have a photo of the previous signage at head height which is hard to read and a zoomed in version to the text before and after where it mentions ANPR rather than the pay for your 10 minutes after entering, again is worth attaching and mentioning that?

nosferatu1001

No, do not mention it
It still isnt a fine. Notice how noone uses that word?

Its a simple premise: attach anything to your appeal that helps you. If you have a point about unclear signage, and you can prove the signage is unclear, then of course do so.

Umkomaas

one final question before I submit I have not mentioned the previous fine being written off by NCP LTD for pretty much the same instance a week earlier is it wise to mention that?

For what purpose? Do you think it is likely to assist your case, have a neutral effect, or harm it?

Also have a photo of the previous signage at head height which is hard to read and a zoomed in version to the text before and after where it mentions ANPR rather than the pay for your 10 minutes after entering, again is worth attaching and mentioning that?

I haven't read back through the thread, but by 'previous', do you mean that the signs had been replaced before the ticket you are now appealing? If so, what are you looking to achieve by showing old photos? (Sorry if I've misread that.)

atanks

Evening,

I have been sent the NCP reply to my POPLA appeal please see below... I have to reply by 23/09.

The motorist has appealed on the basis that they paid for the duration of their parking using the Cashless (phone payment) method when they got to their office; the appellant claims the signage does not state you have to pay on entry and therefore the PCN should be cancelled.

The appellant further claims the operator has not complied with PoFA 2012 as they did not send a Notice to Keeper, the motorist claims there is no keeper liability and state NCP have no confirmation of who was driving, they claim NCP have no authority to pursue charges or form contracts with drivers. The appellant claims the signage is not prominent and has insufficient notice of the amount of the parking charge, they claim the land is not relevant land and as such the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

We note the appellants comments however this is a pay & display car park a PCN was attached to the windscreen of the vehicle, as the driver appealed the parking charge within 28 days from the date of receiving the notice it was not necessary to send a Notice to Keeper. The appellant Anthony Sherwood stated in their initial appeal “I have paid for my duration” and subsequently “the warden has given me a PCN 20 minutes after parking” I conclude the appellant has stated they were in fact the driver on the date of event.

According to the Cashless parking database the parking session was purchased after the PCN was issued. We appreciate the motorist paid for a parking session however; the parking session must be in place before leaving the vehicle in the car park.

When the Parking Attendant checked the vehicle there was no valid payment for parking. I have included the customer’s Cashless payment which was made after the PCN was issued. When the appellant paid by phone, the parking session they paid for covered them from the time of payment until the paid parking session expires and therefore cannot be applied retrospectively. At the time the PCN was issued, they had no valid payment in place and hence the PCN was issued correctly.

Should NCP allow motorists to pay for their parking session retrospectively, the operator is leaving the cashless payment system open to abuse as some motorists would only pay for a parking session, on returning to their vehicle and finding a parking charge notice already issued. This would leave the operator open to non payment being made on days when no parking charge notice is issued to the vehicle which would not be financially viable.

The appellant questions the operator’s authority to manage the car park, issue and pursue motorists for the unpaid parking charge notice fees. NCP has a rolling contract with the landowner to manage and issue PCN’s at all its locations nationwide. (Please find a copy in section G) The operator has installed multiple signs and payment machines etc. throughout the car park which have been in place for a number of years previous to the issue of this PCN. It is clear that should the operator not have the required contracts and authority to manage the car park the landowner would have sought the removal of the operator from this car park through legal channels when initially the operator proceeded to manage the car park.
This Parking Charge Notice was issued in a Non Pofa car park and issued under breach of contract. The Parking Charge Notice was not issued under Bylaws. We appreciate that Railway station car parks generally issue a Penalty Charge Notice under these bylaws, however the landowner has authority to issue under Breach of Contract instead and as such register to with the British Parking Association offering the POPLA services should they wish to do so rather than issue a Penalty notice (Bylaws) which would not allow the motorist the opportunity to use the service of POPLA.

We note the motorist’s comments; had the appellant entered the site and found the entry signage was not visible enough to determine the sites Terms and Conditions; as they are aware of Terms and Conditions being in place, it is their responsibility to check for signage once parked within the car park in order to read and abide by the regulations in place. There is signage on the entrance to the car park and multiple signs located throughout the site. NCP also place signage close to the pay and display machines in order to bring the Terms and Conditions to the attention of motorists. The Size and the font on the signage is British Parking Association approved and the BPA have indeed praised NCP for displaying signs larger than they recommend in their code of practice. Unfortunately, the signage by its very nature has to be more detailed than used by other operators as NCP own the locations as well as enforcing the Terms and Conditions, which unfortunately results in more detail having to be provided. NCP is the best known brand in parking and as such generally it is known that if you enter an NCP site you will be expected to pay for parking and follow all Terms and Conditions on site.

In a similar case (4362236298) POPLA refused the motorists appeal stating - The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking.
We note the appellant’s comments that the parking charge notice amount is excessive, however the vehicle was parked at this location in the site in full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the site, one of which being that if the terms and conditions were not complied with a parking charge notice for £100 would be issued; When parking on private land, a motorist enters into an agreement to abide by the terms and conditions of parking in return for parking at the site.”
The appellant states the PCN fee is not a genuine pre estimate of loss however; the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal in the ParkingEye v Barry Beavis case in which this issue was raised. The decision provides clarity on the use of contract law for parking on private land. The ruling supported the view of the Court of Appeal judges in April this year and that of Judge Moloney that the charge should be an effective deterrent.

POPLA have refused a similar case wher the Unfair Consumer Contract was questioned (Case 4360517508) -The appellant has raised The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1999. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 require that certain information is provided prior to the conclusion of the contract. However, under section 6 (2) it states that “These Regulations do not apply to contracts – (a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises”. In this case I have considered “automated commercial premises” to mean a place of business where little to no human contact is required for the conclusion and performance of a contract. Following my review of the evidence provided by the operator, I conclude that the car park I question is such premises; as motorists park their vehicles without any assistance. Accordingly, I consider that there is no requirement for the operator to provide pre-contract information to motorists before a contract can be concluded,
There is signage on the entrance to the car park and multiple signs located throughout the site. NCP also place signage close to the pay and display machines in order to bring the Terms and Conditions to the attention of motorists. The Size and the font on the signage is British Parking Association approved and the BPA have indeed praised NCP for displaying signs larger than they recommend in their code of practice. The appellant had the opportunity to observe the sites Terms and Conditions when gaining the information on how to pay and how much to pay for a parking session as the Terms and Conditions are stated on our website and on the pay and display machines on site.

Paragraph 5d of the sites Terms and Conditions clearly states In pay and display car parks you must do one of the following: which then details the paragraph 5d, which states you pay all amounts due for your parking and comply with the requirements set out at clause 10 (Ticket types and payment methods) of these Terms. For the avoidance of doubt, if you choose to pay the parking tariff by using the Pay By Mobile service, the payment must be made at the time of parking your vehicle in the Car Park and in any event, before you leave your vehicle in the Car Park.

10b) Pay By Mobile – you must register an account and use the pay by mobile service provided by the relevant service provider in accordance with its terms and conditions ( Information is available at http://www.ncp.co.uk) and then (Upon parking in the car park and before leaving your vehicle in the car park) purchase the amount of time for which you would like to park.

It is the responsibility of every motorist to observe and comply with the Terms and Conditions our facilities are provided and managed under and by leaving the vehicle the appellant indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted that a PCN would be issued for non compliance of the displayed conditions.

To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the Notice.

POPLA state decisions will be based on finding of fact; the facts are that the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed Terms and Conditions and NCP trust that POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Aaargh, you (maybe) blew it in your first appeal, albeit it will be up to POPLA to conclude whether those words you used 100% confirmed you were the driver. A bad mistake at 1st appeal stage.

I would rebut their assertion that you were the driver (and cross your fingers) and say to POPLA that:

The driver has never been identified, only the payer of the phone parking session, which is why you used the word 'my' in your first appeal, because you were an occupant of the car and the PBP account happens to be yours.

At no point was the driver implied nor admitted such that NCP could hold the keeper appellant liable, and they have admitted this is a non-POFA car park, and admitted that they failed to issue a Notice to Keeper at all.

Add that like all the other terms, ''Paragraph 5d of the site's Terms and Conditions'' is buried among lines of text in minuscule illegible font, hidden in a thoroughly wordy sign that has over 1000( you check?) words! And that at the point of making the payment, there is nothing to tell a payer that they cannot pay for their current parking session and you followed the rules of the app, and NCP have failed to show otherwise.

Have they shown landowner authority? If not, point that out as it is a killer!

atanks

Aaargh, you (maybe) blew it in your first appeal, albeit it will be up to POPLA to conclude whether those words you used 100% confirmed you were the driver. A bad mistake at 1st appeal stage.

I would rebut their assertion that you were the driver (and cross your fingers) and say to POPLA that:

The driver has never been identified, only the payer of the phone parking session, which is why you used the word 'my' in your first appeal, because you were an occupant of the car and the PBP account happens to be yours.

At no point was the driver implied nor admitted such that NCP could hold the keeper appellant liable, and they have admitted this is a non-POFA car park, and admitted that they failed to issue a Notice to Keeper at all.

i know....... a mistake I will only make the once as this was Pre-Newbie thread! I was going to imply it was related to the account and car rather than me driving!

Add that like all the other terms, ''Paragraph 5d of the site's Terms and Conditions'' is buried among lines of text in minuscule illegible font, hidden in a thoroughly wordy sign that has over 1000( you check?) words! And that at the point of making the payment, there is nothing to tell a payer that they cannot pay for their current parking session and you followed the rules of the app, and NCP have failed to show otherwise.

Yes they have sent the full t&cs from there website but part of the sign that is at the actual car park and a few parts are missing including the statement where you they point out a payment needs to be made within 10 minutes of parking there.... when they seem to try and make out it has to be done in advance, Did ask previously if this had any legs?

Have they shown landowner authority? If not, point that out as it is a killer!

They have sent the LU Contract that could be really handy for any future cases not sure if it is worth attaching for future cases?

Coupon-mad

They have sent the LU Contract that could be really handy for any future cases not sure if it is worth attaching for future cases?

Yes please.

Can you link it here, using Dropbox and a broken link so we can convert it?