Fine for Paid Parking Ticket - HX Car Park

reysham

Thank you for all the help thus far...coming to the deadline and I am preparing to print and send. Would a final check be possible please? In particular, your thoughts on points 5, 6 and 18 would be much appreciated.
Paragraphs 5 and 6: Have I expressed myself correctly regarding POFA or should I remove any reference to it and keep the information basic, i.e. I was not the driver and have the evidence to prove it?
Paragraph 18: Is there any benefit to pointing out that the initial PCN was for one thing, and their whole argument is about another?

1. I, xxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx will say as follows:


2. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in this matter.

3. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked Appendix to which I will refer.

4. Following further investigation into my whereabouts on xx xx xx, at the time of the alleged parking incident, I can confirm that I was not driving the car as I had first assumed, but seeing to my employment responsibilities within the inner-city area of xx. During the evidence-gathering process, I am aware that the driver had driven into the city centre with a young toddler sometime in the early afternoon.

5. In the POPLA Annual Report 2015, Henry M Gleenslade iterates quite clearly that the only person who can be deemed wholly responsible for a parking charge on private land is the driver of the vehicle in question at the time, and that this cannot be assumed to be the registered keeper. In addition, the details of the keeper can only be released under the POFA 2012 if there is ‘reasonable cause’ to do so, such as ‘tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services’. (Page 1, Appendix).

6. I have filed my Location History for the time and date in question on Page 2 of Appendix, which clearly shows that I was not the driver of the car at the time, and therefore why there is no keeper liability in this case. The POFA 2012 cannot be invoked as the keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver of an alleged infraction, and my exhibit supports my assertion that I was not the driver at the time. In addition, the following is evidence that the events of the day and time in question is not in infraction of any conditions under which the POFA 2012 can be invoked.

7. I received PCN:xxxxx approximately 10-12 days after the alleged parking incident. The PCN states that the contravention was ‘[failure] to purchase a pay and display ticket within the 10-minute grace period allowed’. This PCN is at Page 3 of Appendix.

8. The parking ticket that had been purchased for the day and car park in question was still in the car, which disproved the PCN’s conjecture, so I appealed the PCN using the company’s online system.

9. The appeal was rejected, and the legal procedures began. My Defence Statement outlined my findings and arguments against the PCN’s validity.

10. In support of my Defence, I attach an example of the Beavis Signage and a Point-of-View photograph of the signage in the xx xx Car Park at Pages 4-6 of the Appendix. This highlights that the Claimant's signage did not make it clear whether the parking period within the paid time included time spent after entering the site via its ANPR cameras looking for a space and parking in it and locating and reading the terms and conditions and deciding to accept them, and time spent when leaving the site via the same cameras exiting the space, driving round the car park's one way system and then driving out onto a public road. It is trite law that any uncertainty in a contract should be resolved against the person who offered it under the contra preferentem rule.

11. I would also like to point to the improbability of entry, parking and ticket purchase at a Pay and Display machine within a period 60 -120 seconds as a lone adult, never mind in the presence of a toddler who needs to be removed from a car and strapped into a pushchair. This data from the PDT machine calls the time-capturing accuracy of the machine or the ANPR into question. The data extract is on Page 7 of Appendix. Indeed, it is highly improbable that the time on every timepiece in this room is exactly the same at this very moment, so to rely on the timestamp of mechanised objects that have such discrepancy is irregular and unfair.

12. I have considered the CoP of the International Parking Community (IPC), the association to which the Claimant’s signage implies membership. This refers to compliance and grace periods, at paragraphs 2 and 15, respectively, copies of which are at pages 8 and 9 of Appendix. Paragraph 15 of the IPC’s CoP clearly states that drivers are to be given a ‘minimum of 10 minutes to leave a site after pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired’, and further states that it is absolutely applicable to parking that exceeds one hour.

13. In this case, the data produced and relied upon by the Claimant shows that the period passing between the car entering and leaving was 12 minutes. Applying the "minimum" 10 minutes owed after the paid parking period according to the IPC CoP. the driver’s efforts in purchasing a ticket for two hours of parking, and returning to the vehicle in time to leave within 12 minutes of the end time highlights the effort made in leaving with a toddler within a reasonable amount of time.

14. At Page 10 of Appendix is a Google Earth aerial photograph of the car park. I have marked, in red, an approximation of the parking bays, and used yellow dashes to mark the route taken to exit the car park safely. The exit area is marked in blue and the NCP car park and other city centre car parking is marked in green. It is visible from this image that conditions in the car park for manoeuvring and parking are very tight; parking bays are narrow, as is the distance of the ‘road’/route that drivers must use to navigate the car park. Drivers need to take extra care when reversing or driving to avoid scratching or damaging other vehicles and take pedestrians into consideration too, as the area is also a by-way to an adjacent car park. Multiple manoeuvres are required to turn the tight corner as one leaves, adding to the time taken to leave once out of the parking bay. An un-editable video is on the USB attached to Page 11 of Appendix. It demonstrates the care with which one must drive around the car park itself. The video has been taken by a passenger sat directly behind the driver.

15. The ANPR capture of the car upon exit shows that the brake was being used. Putting aside the question of accuracy of time, the brake lights indicate the need for caution. This is because, due to the car park being adjacent to an inner-city centre road, drivers must take extra care when joining the traffic, and can, on particularly busy days, wait a few minutes before being able to leave the car park’s grounds. This picture is at Page 12 of Appendix.

16. Taking the presence of a vulnerable person, the serious matter of the accuracy of the machines at the car park on the day in question, and the conditions both inside and outside the car park, I believe that the period of time that the driver was on site after the parking period is not only reasonable but sensible and safe as a responsible driver and parent.

17. I would like to reiterate that the recommended grace period is a minimum of 10 minutes, and the Claimant should have exercised common sense and applied a greater grace period than the minimum to take into account the prevailing circumstances at the time.

18. Then too, the PCN refers to an alleged non-purchase of a ticket for parking, but are now arguing the case for a fine to be paid for an overstay, in direct contravention of the charge they initially made.

19. The issue the court is being asked to deal with is de minimis and the court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter.

Umkomaas

5. In the POPLA Annual Report 2015, Henry M Gleenslade iterates quite clearly

You need to add Henry Greenslade's credentials as the Judge is unlikely to know who he is or what his background is to make his statement credible.

Do a forum search on his name as his credentials almost always follow his name.

In addition, the details of the keeper can only be released under the POFA 2012 if there is ‘reasonable cause’ to do so, such as ‘tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services’. (Page 1, Appendix).

Not entirely correct. The DVLA have agreed across the piece that PPCs have 'reasonable cause' in private parking cases.

6. I have filed my Location History for the time and date in question on Page 2 of Appendix, which clearly shows that I was not the driver of the car at the time, and therefore why there is no keeper liability in this case. The POFA 2012 cannot be invoked as the keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver of an alleged infraction, and my exhibit supports my assertion that I was not the driver at the time. In addition, the following is evidence that the events of the day and time in question is not in infraction of any conditions under which the POFA 2012 can be invoked.

Even if you were not the driver, provided all the PPC's documentation meets with the strict requirements of PoFA, in the absence of knowing who the driver was, PoFA allows the PPC to transfer liability to the keeper.

You need to attack their compliance with PoFA to make headway on this point.

18. Then too, the PCN refers to an alleged non-purchase of a ticket for parking, but are now arguing the case for a fine to be paid for an overstay, in direct contravention of the charge they initially made.

This is absolutely a good point to make. The more you can undermine their case against you, the better.

1505grandad

Para 13 - "13. In this case, the data produced and relied upon by the Claimant shows that the period passing between the car entering and leaving was 12 minutes." Seems to suggest that car was only in cp for 12 mins?.

Para 14 - What has NCP to do with it - it is the first mention of NCP in the doc? - " The exit area is marked in blue and the NCP car park and other city centre car parking is marked in green."

reysham

Still do't know how to direct reply to specific portions so:

@umkomas: What argument could I have to attack PPCs use of PoFA?
@1505grandad: I will amend the info about the time. The point I was trying to make is that the vehicle was captured leaving 12 minutes after the paid parking time.
In regards to point 14: The ANPR captures the car upon entry and at exit. The exit leads directly onto a busy road that serves on-street parking, two-way traffic and a large NCP car park, all adding to the likeliness of having to pause for quite a while before merging safely into the road.

KeithP

reysham wrote: »

Still do't know how to direct reply to specific portions...

Use the quote button, or the multi-quote button, at the bottom of the post you want to quote.

Quite straightforward... unless you are trying to use this forum on a mobile telephone.

reysham

@umkomaas: had a thought: can I state that PoFa will have been invoked by the PPC for not ourchasing the ticket, which their own evidence contradicts (the PND data), so invoking PoFA in this circumstance is in contravention of the legal use?

reysham

also: the 'relevant' period for receiving a PCN by post is 14 days. Is this inclusive of weekends, or just working days (mon to fri)? Because the PCN is dated 10 days after the alleged contravention (so e.g.charge for 1st september, letter dated 11th). It was a Friday, so highly probable that i received the notice between Wednesday and Monday after, i.e. 11 to 15 working days after, or 15 actual days after).

reysham

could i write this for various points discussed previously:

5. Under Schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA (Page 2, Appendix), an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12. In Paragraph 9, which relates to the terms for a notice to being given to the keeper a mandatory timeline and wording are stipulated, i.e.
’’(2) The notice must (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;’’

The PCN wrongly identifies the charge, claiming that the driver ‘failed to purchase a pay and display ticket within the 10 minute grace period allowed’, when in fact a ticket was purchased, and according to the Claimant’s own evidence, was bought between 60 and 120 seconds of entering the car park. The PCN is at Page 3 of Appendix.

Thus the Claimant’s compliance with POFA comes into scrutiny and brings the validity of the PCN into question.

The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-

‘Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”.’ (Page 4, Appendix).

As the conditions were not met with, i.e. the wrongful claim under which the charge was issued, liability and recovery under POFA is no longer relevant.

6. I appealed the PCN, which was rejected, and the legal procedures began. My Defence Statement outlined my findings and arguments against the PCN’s validity.

7. The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking bays. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that:

‘(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.’

In support of my Defence, I attach an example of the Beavis Signage and a Point-of-View photograph of the signage in the xx xx Car Park at Pages 5-7 of the Appendix. This highlights that the Claimant's signage did not make it clear whether the parking period within the paid time included time spent after entering the site via its ANPR cameras looking for a space and parking in it and locating and reading the terms and conditions and deciding to accept them, and time spent when leaving the site via the same cameras exiting the space, driving round the car park's one way system and then driving out onto a public road. The transparency of language is therefore called into question. Additional terms and conditions at the bottom of the sign is illegible on the photo, which is reflective of its actual size and legibility in person as evidenced by the POV positioning of the photograph. It is trite law that any uncertainty in a contract should be resolved against the person who offered it under the contra preferentem rule.

...

12. At Page 11 of Appendix is a Google Earth aerial photograph of the car park. I have marked, in red, an approximation of the parking bays, and used yellow dashes to mark the route taken to exit the car park safely. The exit area is marked in blue and a large car park and other city centre car parking is marked in green.

It is visible from this image that conditions in the car park for manoeuvring and parking are very tight; parking bays are narrow, as is the distance of the ‘road’/route that drivers must use to navigate the car park. Drivers need to take extra care when reversing or driving to avoid scratching or damaging other vehicles and take pedestrians into consideration too, as the area is also a by-way to an adjacent car park. Multiple manoeuvres are required to turn the tight corner as one leaves, adding to the time taken to leave once out of the parking bay.

In addition, the car park’s exit leads directly onto a two-way road, serving as byway for road users and those exiting both the xxx car park, on-street parking and the large car park directly opposite xxx car park. This also means that drivers need to stop at the exit, by necessity, to ensure that it is safe to merge into traffic. The ANPR faces this exit area, where it is unavoidable to stop for an unspecified amount of time before exiting the car park fully.

An un-editable video is on the USB attached to Page 12 of Appendix. It demonstrates the care with which one must drive around the car park itself and the exit point with the associated hazards. The video has been taken by a passenger sat directly behind the driver on 08.10.2019.

...

16. Then too, the PCN refers to an alleged non-purchase of a ticket for parking, but are now arguing the case for a fine to be paid for an overstay, in direct contravention of the charge they initially made.

17. Also recall that the conditions under which POFA can be invoked were not met in their entirety, bringing the validity of the entire case into question.

18. The issue the court is being asked to deal with is de minimis and the court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter.

reysham

Thank you all for your help thus far, although...turned up at court today to attend the hearing to find that - huge surprise - the case had been discontinued mid-September. I wasn't informed at all about this and actually spent money and lost some earnings taking time off to 'keep the day clear'.

Coupon-mad

Wow, well done as that is a win! :T

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

You could send the PPC's solicitor your costs and say you will file a claim for them because they didn't inform you that they'd discontinued the case, and see what they say about that!