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

atanks

Happy New Year great start to mine thus far.... ha!

Please see response below... any advice on next steps would be greatly appreciated!

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking permits were detected.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal is that the Notice to Keeper is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 so there is no keeper liability. Secondly, the appellant does not believe that the operator has relevant authority to pursue charges or form contracts with drivers. The appellant advises that the signs in the 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 operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been liable for the charge. Finally, the appellant advises that railway land is not ‘relevant land’. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a seven-page document detailing his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the site, which state, “A PCN will be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions…This includes the following breaches: Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking…Failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions associated with your chosen payment method”, “PCN charges paid after 14 days £100.” The operator has issued the PCN because the motorist parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking permits were detected. The operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle taken between 08:20 and 08:40 on the day in question. The operator has also provided a copy of the whitelist lookup, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park against a payment. I can see that the appellant’s vehicle was registered against a payment at 16:33. On the face of the evidence, it looks like there was a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached.

I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. I acknowledge the appellant states that there is no factual evidence that he was the driver and the appeal was made by him as the owner. However, in the appeal to the operator the appellant stated, “I have paid for my duration please see payment reference…in my account the warden has given me a PCN 20 minutes after parking”, I am satisfied after reviewing his appeal that this is sufficient to confirm that the appellant was the driver. The liability for any PCN issued lies with the driver of the vehicle on the date of the parking event. PoFA 2012 sets out the requirements that must be met in order for a parking operator to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, where the driver cannot be identified. In this case, I am satisfied the driver has been identified, therefore the operator is not seeking to rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer liability as it has identified the driver. As such, PoFA 2012 does not apply in this case, and there is no requirement for the PCN to comply with the acts requirements.

The appellant advises that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. Under Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states, “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” After reviewing the photographs of the signage and site map, I am satisfied they meet section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. I consider the signage conspicuous, legible and sufficient for the site. I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to make motorists aware of the conditions and the possible parking charge if the motorist does not adhere to the terms. I acknowledge the appellant states in the motorist comments that the terms do not reference a timeframe for the online payment service. However, it states on the signage “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.” I am satisfied that the signage makes it clear that motorists must pay before leaving their vehicle.

Under section seven of the BPA Code of Practice it states “7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. 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.” Within the evidence pack the operator has provided a copy of the contract between London Underground Limited and National Car Parks Limited. After reviewing this document, I am satisfied that it meets the criteria set out in section seven of the BPA Code of Practice. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site. I note the appellant states that railway land is not ‘relevant land’ as documented under PoFA 2012. However, as documented above, the operator is not relying on PoFA 2012.

I am satisfied that the contract provided is sufficient for the operator to pursue parking charges for this site. Within the motorists comments the appellant has identified that under section 2.3.1 for General enforcement it states, “Issuing either a Customer Notice (for first offences) or a PCN to customers by post.” It goes on to state “LUL reserves the right for first offences, at car parks with ANPR deployed, to be treated as a customer relationship opportunity, whereby the DVLA record is used to contact the registered keeper, via a Customer Notice, noting failure to pay and offering an opportunity to register for a parking account and pay the tariff owed plus an administration fee (to cover DVLA costs).” I appreciate it states that the operator will issue a Customer Notice for a first offence, but this is only at car parks where Automatic Number Plate Recognition has been deployed. The operator is not relying on ANPR at this site as the PCN was issued by a mobile patroller. It does not state within the contract that a Customer Notice should be issued at sites with a patroller. I am therefore satisfied that the operator can issue a PCN for first time offences where there is a mobile patroller. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. In this case, the motorist parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking permits were detected. As such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Fruitcake

A PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist, so of course there is no requirement for you to pay the charge.

It's a shame you revealed the vehicle owner's identity in your appeal as they can actually be liable where byelaws apply. Never mind, this information cannot be passed to TfL/LU. Unfortunately your name appears in other posts so should NCP tell their lords and masters to read this thread, TfL/LU could actually learn the information about the owner's identity.
It is however extremely unlikely they would bother to do so and start proceedings in the Magitrate's court.

I merely point this out to show how important it is to double check your workings out before submitting it to the scammers.

So, you are in ignore mode unless you want to ask NCP a string of inane questions every couple of weeks by snail mail to run the clock down to six months.

These could include,

What happens if I don't pay?
Who can take me to court?
Which type of court would it be?
Which part of your contract would allow court proceedings to take place?
Are you allowed to pass my details to the landowner without breaching DPA/GDPR regulations.

After six months you tell them to delete your data.

Whatever else you do, please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

atanks

Fruitcake wrote: »

A PoPLA decision is not binding on the motorist, so of course there is no requirement for you to pay the charge.

It's a shame you revealed the vehicle owner's identity in your appeal as they can actually be liable where byelaws apply. Never mind, this information cannot be passed to TfL/LU. Unfortunately your name appears in other posts so should NCP tell their lords and masters to read this thread, TfL/LU could actually learn the information about the owner's identity.
It is however extremely unlikely they would bother to do so and start proceedings in the Magitrate's court.

I know but still surprised POPLA went with it as there is no physical evidence of me being the driver?

Where else in this thread is my name mentioned?

I merely point this out to show how important it is to double check your workings out before submitting it to the scammers.

So, you are in ignore mode unless you want to ask NCP a string of inane questions every couple of weeks by snail mail to run the clock down to six months.

These could include,

What happens if I don't pay?
Who can take me to court?
Which type of court would it be?
Which part of your contract would allow court proceedings to take place?
Are you allowed to pass my details to the landowner without breaching DPA/GDPR regulations.

After six months you tell them to delete your data.

Whatever else you do, please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

When would the six months commence from the end of the 28 days or if I will sending this questions delay that time frame to pay?

waamo

It's six months from the date of the henious crime so you are already a fair way there.

atanks

The alleged offence was the 18th July, so unless I am being a baffoon... that means Next Friday 18th January right?

Note the 28 days notice was given on the 4th Jan so will expire 1st Feb, does the above still apply if so?

Coupon-mad

atanks wrote: »

I know but still surprised POPLA went with it as there is no physical evidence of me being the driver?

I am not surprised:

in the appeal to the operator the appellant stated, “I have paid for my duration please see payment reference…in my account the warden has given me a PCN 20 minutes after parking”, I am satisfied after reviewing his appeal that this is sufficient to confirm that the appellant was the driver.

You gave away who was driving and I agree with POPLA, you messed the first appeal up. Sorry. Oh dear. Bad move. Bad appeal.

It would have won on 'no keeper liability' had you not done that.

There wasn't even a warden, that's not a word to describe a PPC 'employee'.

Anyway, you need to know that NCP will likely sue anyway as this was a contractual charge, not a penalty. The case will not 'time out' like a penalty one would. A parking charge is not a byelaws penalty.

I am NOT saying to pay it!!

Come back when you get a claim and in the meantime, read up on Gladstones claims which are all over the forum, including plenty of NCP ones.

atanks

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am not surprised:

You gave away who was driving and I agree with POPLA, you messed the first appeal up. Sorry. Oh dear. Bad move. Bad appeal.

It would have won on 'no keeper liability' had you not done that.

There wasn't even a warden, that's not a word to describe a PPC 'employee'.

:money:

Anyway, you need to know that NCP will likely sue anyway as this was a contractual charge, not a penalty. The case will not 'time out' like a penalty one would. A parking charge is not a byelaws penalty.

I am NOT saying to pay it!!

Come back when you get a claim and in the meantime, read up on Gladstones claims which are all over the forum, including plenty of NCP ones.

Ok so Fruitcakes comments are null and void and I have been reading through today and still have a lot more to get through...

Just to clarify when you say "claim" are you referring to the letter they will send after the 28 day period ends OR find a similar argument claim from the newbies thread to use in the proceedings?

KeithP

Claim means county court claim.

Coupon-mad

I did say read up on Gladstones claims! If you had, you will know when these are won and how, at court.

You only had to read any Gladstones NCP thread to know what it means.

I am NOT saying you should pay, there is no risk and no CCJ for defending a claim.

atanks

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I did say read up on Gladstones claims! If you had, you will know when these are won and how, at court.

You only had to read any Gladstones NCP thread to know what it means.

I am NOT saying you should pay, there is no risk and no CCJ for defending a claim.

So after another delve into the newbies thread could you help me confirm next Steps...
1) Wait for first Claim letter from Gladstones/NCP
2) Respond with the below Template... from thread https://legalbeagles.info/library/guides_and_letters/court/subject-access-request/
3) I Then found a good template for the claim in this thread
"Ignored NCP 'fine'; now have County Court Business Centre letter"


Lastly, had another read through the whole of this thread to help rekindle any misdemeanors for the claim and noticed this on the initial appeal rejection...

We can however progress an appeal once we are in receipt of signed and dated written consent from the driver of the vehicle at the time of the issue of the Parking Charge Notice giving you full authority to act on their behalf and to receive any relevant information or data relating to them.

And this in comment #12 from Handbags-at-dawn with point ii

Brentwood station is operated by London Underground Ltd, part of TfL, and managed by NCP under a contract which can be found at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/415578/response/1011604/attach/4/TfL%2091322%20Signed%20Contract%2023122014%20Redac ted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
NCP's enforcement duties are set out in Schedule 4, para 2.3 (about p87). The main things to note are :-
i) the tickets are Parking Charge Notices (ie for breach of contract) rather than Penalty Notices (for breach of Byelaws);
ii) NCP is not authorised to issue Court proceedings;
iii) NCP are required to offer access to POPLA.