Total Parking Solutions - PCN NtK

nosferatu1001

Every single possible appeal point is used
POFA compliance
SIgnage
Standing

Yella_Fella

I'm looking at the massive 26 page document as per link https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5839337, and I can see a lot of points stipulated from the BPA, PoFA 2012 has changed since then.

What's with the 'Standing' section you've referred to?

Yella_Fella

As its the weekend, I've drafted my POPLA appeal as I've got some time. To cut the story short I'm appealing as NtK issued, the PCN was based on a 1 hour overstay in a 3 hour car park. The parking company has changed hands as of earlier in October. Do let me know if I should just be concentrating on signage and landowner authority. Some parts don't make sense when I'm not the driver, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. I only have 3 days left to submit this.

On a quick note, can an admin change the title of the thread to Total Parking Solutions (I put charge by accident). Thank you.

Appeal to POPLA

---

APPEAL RE: PPC Name CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2018, VEHICLE REG: **** ***

As the registered keeper of this vehicle, I received a letter dated xx/xx/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Total Parking Solutions Ltd. – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx/xx/2018 and rejected via a letter dated xx/xx/2018. I contend that as the keeper I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

2. Neither the parking company nor their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

3. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

4. The parking company has not provided sufficient evidence of parking time or sufficient detail of contravention.

5. The parking company has failed to provide evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part21 (ANPR)

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

Having since visited the site I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a van can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed anywhere else do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18.3 and with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 section 2 (2). I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication:
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

2. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change with Milton Keynes Council and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and a chargeable regime in this car park.

3. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking companies have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v– Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.

In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.

4. No evidence of parking time or sufficient detail of contravention

The parking company is relying on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving. These pictures show no evidence of actual parking time or where the car was after driving in, whether it stayed in the car park or left and then returned within the recorded timescale. The postal 'ticket' fails to clarify the issue and so it is a nullity since it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

5. ANPR requirements – section 21 of the BPA code of practice

Total Parking Solutions Ltd. have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice section 21 (ANPR). I need POPLA to consider whether the parking company has shown documented evidence of contemporaneous manual checks of the cameras, clocks and related machinery in that particular car park. These maintenance checks are a requirement of section 21 of the Code.

This concludes my appeal.

Le_Kirk

You can change your own title, just hit the EDIT button and then select Go Advanced and one of the boxes revealed is the TITLE

Yella_Fella

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I man them just saying the words:doesn't necessarily make it so, and as advised:

How about now, are you able to advise? Many thanks.

KeithP

It was suggested that you need to...

Compare the NTK to Schedule 4 (it's linked in the NEWBIES thread for those people who can't Google).

Yella_Fella

I’ve wrote my appeal above, are you saying this is wrong?

KeithP

Yella_Fella wrote: »

I’ve wrote my appeal above, are you saying this is wrong?

Certainly not, although it does appear to be quite a lot shorter than most. For example why is the signage section so much shorter than the example in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

What I was saying was that you appear not to have compared the NtK with the requirements of POFA.

You say you are appealing as the keeper, so are you saying that you have compared the NtK with the requirements of POFA and found it to be compliant?

Yella_Fella

KeithP wrote: »

Certainly not, although it does appear to be quite a lot shorter than most. For example why is the signage section so much shorter than the example in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

What I was saying was that you appear not to have compared the NtK with the requirements of POFA.

You say you are appealing as the keeper, so are you saying that you have compared the NtK with the requirements of POFA and found it to be compliant?

I believe I had, I’m not very good at comparing law and contracts. I’ll have another pass at it tomorrow but the deadline is either tomorrow or Tuesday for the POPLA appeal.

It just doesn’t make sense, if I’m appealing as a keeper why do I have to mention bits that relate to what a driver would be involved with. Looking at other long document appeals that has images of the location etc which were written last year and beyond. I’ve also noticed points the cover from said policies have changed. I admit I need a lot of help on this, with the fees going up and a potential small claims court against me, it’s getting a bit out of hand. As colleague said, I can’t win, should have paid the fee whilst it was cheap.

Yella_Fella

I’ve not found many for Total Parking Solutions, so I searched based on NtK under POPLA appeals and success results. Generated appeals based on such as a keeper.