First Parking PCN

zipadee

Hi. I received a PCN from First Parking for parking in University car park without a permit. This PCN received as the Keeper of the vehicle. I appealed this online using the standard template on the 'Newbies thread'. I have stated that I was not the driver. Of course this has been rejected and a POPLA number issued.

So I just need some advice as to best way to go about this. I have read through Coupon-mads second stage POPLA appeal and the various areas I can appeal on e.g. signage, landowner authority etc. Should I be able to use examples and copy and paste them into my appeal ?

Re signage, they have photos of the car with signage in the background which I cannot read and I've never been to this car park. Should I go to car park and take my own photos so I can contest.

Thanks for your help

Redx

yes to all the above, especially the signage , as long as the pics you take etc support your appeal

in any case, by putting those legal points and arguments in your appeal you make the PPC prove to popla that they are correct on each and every point , one failure and they lose

so by querying signage you make them prove their signage meets the usual obligations, even if you have no pictures yourself

adding your own pics helps to improve your arguments, but only if they back up your side of things

zipadee

Thanks for quick reply

Coupon-mad

No idea how you have overlooked the winning POPLA point - no keeper liability.

That's the whole point of appealing on day 26 after a windscreen PCN...to stop them sending a Notice to Keeper - point that out to POPLA and you win.

zipadee

Hi Coupon-mad
“No idea how you have overlooked the winning POPLA point - no keeper liability.

That's the whole point of appealing on day 26 after a windscreen PCN...to stop them sending a Notice to Keeper - point that out to POPLA and you win.”

Unfortunately, I was not made aware by driver that windscreen PCN hasd been issued and was only made aware when NTK arrived. I have informed everyone not to ignore a windscreen PCN in future.

Having appealed via POPLA on the following 5 points, I have now received the evidence and response from PPC which I need to respond to. These are the 5 points I appealed on.

1This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

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

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

5. No Contract was entered into between the First Parking and the Driver or Registered keeper

In PPC response they have provided evidence of.

1. The original windscreen PCN and NTK and the fact that they issued everything within the required time frame.
2. Photo evidence of signage
3. Non Landowners Parking Enforcements Services Agreement.

So, I am not really sure how best I can now respond to their evidence. Below is their written response;

“As you can see from the photographic evidence the appellant was parked without being registered to park. There is clear and adequate signage on site that shows the regulations to the motorists. The driver has therefore not adhered to the parking regulations.
The appellant has failed to provide us with a full name and serviceable address of the driver at the time of contravention, we have now invoked keeper liability.
First Parking LLP request Keeper Details from the DVLA after day 28. First Parking are also fully compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act. Our Notice to Keeper clearly states 'If you were not the driver at the time, please tell us who was driving’. If you are unable to provide the driver's name and valid address and the amount remains outstanding after 28 days, the Creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper as described under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.
We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage, and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible, so the Parking Charge is fully enforceable. All non-essential text is in a smaller font at the bottom of the sign, which can be read once the motorist has parked. To facilitate this, a reasonable grace period is in operation in each car park managed by First Parking. This ensures that a motorist can park, examine and understand the signage then choose if they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions. Should a motorist not wish to be bound by these, they can then leave the site without incurring a Parking Charge.
A BPA Audit was carried out on site on 31/01/2018 by a Mr A Powell who is a BPA Manager and no concerns were raised about the signage installed on site.
First Parking LLP and the Landowner have a contract in place (please find attached a copy of the contract which is signed by the Landowner & First Parking LLP).
First Parking have also ensured that their Parking Charge amount is not punitive and set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature. The charge is based on a pre-estimate of loss, and has been calculated using our company records. The Parking Charge amounts are calculated in conjunction with the landholder, and have been approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association. First Parking does not believe that it would be proportionate to supply our calculations relating to Parking Charges at this time. It should be noted that it is commonly held that any pre-estimate of loss need only be rough and ready.
As an Approved Operator we give time to the driver to assess the advertised rules, signage and they are free to leave the parking area if they disagree with them. If the driver stays then they will have legally agreed to abide by them. A parking ticket is only issued when a vehicle appears not to be complying with the contract they have entered into.
As a member of the British Parking Association, First Parking is fully compliant with all aspects of the BPA Code of Practice which is highlighted below from the most recent code of practice.”

Can someone direct me to how I could respond to their response. I think there is something in the “Newbies Thread” from Coupon-mad that relates to responding to the appeal. I will take a look but if someone could give me some specific advice I would be greateful.

Many thanks

Quentin

zipadee wrote: »

I think there is something in the “Newbies Thread” from Coupon-mad that relates to responding to the appeal. I will take a look but if someone could give me some specific advice I would be greateful.

Yes - see #3 in the FAQ

zipadee

Hi

I have just received notification from POPLA that my appeal was unsuccessful. See below their response. So reading thru the "Newbies" thread I guess one choice is to ignore the result of this appeal and wait for the PPC - in this case, First parking to start sending me debt collection letters and perhaps ultimately take me to court.

So if I ignore, will the debt collection letters include additional penalties on top of the £80 that they are demanding. Will I continue to get these and will the additional penalties start to rack up. If this goes to court and I want to settle before that stage will I have to pay £80 plus all additional penalty costs that they've added.

I really would prefer not to pay these people but I also don't want to have to take up a lot more of my time especially if it got to the court stage. Also I would need help to fight this in court and I'm not sure how that works out on this forum i.e. is it available.

The main thing is time as I have already spent a fair bit of time reading up and appealing. To be fair that has been useful process as I have learned a fair bit and can put to good use if ever required to in future especially appealing from the ticket on window stage at day 28 to make it more difficult for them to issue an NTK. If I had been made aware of ticket on window by driver then that would have been the case but alas not.

Your thoughts would be appreciated






PLA assessment and decision
08/10/2018

Verification Code


Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice for parked without valid parking ticket or permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates; 2. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge; 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; 4. no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; and 5. no contract was entered into between the First Parking and the Driver or Registered keeper. In their comments to POPLA the appellant states there is no genuine pre-estimated of loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £80. The appellant states there is no valid copy of an unredacted contract. Reiterate the signage issues. They refer to the PCN that was issued states the date and time of the incidence but not how long the car was parked. They state it would not be possible to read the signage in a moving car.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The keeper of the vehicle has not indicated either way that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering Section 9 Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. The terms and conditions at the site state “Registered staff only… vehicles must be registered through the permit to park scheme… A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £80 will be issued in the following circumstances: Not paid the appropriate fee for the full duration stay… Not clearly displaying a valid permit”. In this instance the parking operator has issued a PCN for parking without displaying a valid ticket or permit. The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. Further, the operator has stated the parking attendant observed the vehicle on 14 May 2018 and provided photographs showing the contravention at 14:47pm. The parking charge notice was affixed to the windscreen and the appellant has appealed as the registered keeper. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal as follows: 1. Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates; 2. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge; 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; 4. no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice; and 5. no contract was entered into between the First Parking and the Driver or Registered keeper. In their comments to POPLA the appellant states there is no genuine pre-estimated of loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £80. The appellant states there is no valid copy of an unredacted contract. Reiterate the signage issues. They refer to the PCN that was issued states the date and time of the incidence but not how long the car was parked. They state it would not be possible to read the signage in a moving car. I note that when the parking operator requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, the DVLA returned the details the appellant is acting on behalf of. As such, I believe that the parking operator was correct to issue the PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle given the DVLA named her as the registered keeper at the time. The appellant states that the claimant has not complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of Schedule 4, paragraph 9, that they do not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the parking operator has met all of the requirements. As such this entitles it to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for unpaid parking charges in the event it does not receive the full details of the driver within the period specified. The appellant states 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. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “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.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. The appellant states there is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Codes of Practice. The operator has produced a witness statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. An operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. I am satisfied that the witness statement provided by the operator meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant raised some additional comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s evidence pack. The appellant states there is no genuine pre-estimated of loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £80. They refer to the PCN that was issued states the date and time of the incidence but not how long the car was parked. They state it would not be possible to read the signage in a moving car. As the points were not raised in the appellant’s original appeal I will disregard any reference to them in my appeal response. The motorist comments section is to be used to expand upon the original appeal points raised with POPLA and not to be used as a platform to raise new issues that the operator has not had the opportunity to address. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If a motorist is in disagreement with the terms and conditions offered or feels that the terms and conditions cannot be complied with, there would be sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site without a valid permit, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered. POPLA is evidence based and can only assess an appeal based on the evidence presented by both parties. I have not received any evidence from the appellant that is sufficient to disprove that provided by the operator. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

zipadee

Hi

Has anyone able to respond to my last post please ?

Thanks

Quentin

No-one here will advise you to pay


You are now in the debt collectors/wait and see stage


Ignore everything except a LBCCA or court correspondence


They have 6 years to start legal proceedings against you

zipadee

Hi

I have now received letter from Debt Collections agency. Not sure how I can attached pdf file of the letter It does sound very severe and a bit more threatening than what I was expecting. There is also a section referring to landmark decision in Supreme Court re Beavis court case. Is this true is it there just to scare the recipient ?

Also if payment not paid in full in 14 days they will recommend First Parking to consider court action.

Can anyone say if I am likely to be taken to court ? If I am is there any assistance I can get from this board. The costs of going to court - are these significant ? Sorry for all these questions but I need to consider what next steps re.

Thanks

zipadee

If someone can explain how to add attachments, I can attach pdf of letter.

Thanks