Highview Permit NTK

Quentin

POPLA appeals are covered in #3 of the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of this forum


After reading up on how to appeal to POPLA put your draft up here for comment before sending it

safiya

These are the points I plan to use in my POPLA appeal:

Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as there is no option to pay for a space, nor was I parked in a boy to elicit potential financial loss. Highview have not actually suffered any loss and if so the amount should vary for different breaches of the terms and conditions, for example parking over a white line.

Do not have authority-membership of the Approved Operator Scheme which require the Operator to have a clear authorisation from the land owner to manage and enforce parking which is set out in BPA Code of Practise.

The parking charge is not compliant with the PoFA 2012. The operator has not shown that the keeper is liable and I did not enter into a contract with Highview. Liability can not be transferred as the NTK does not meet the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9, section 4. ((I’ll include the quote in the real application)))

Have not shown that I am the driver who may have been potentially valuable for the charge (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103).

The car park is in total darkness and the signs are not independently lit. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in Appendix B, “signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness”...”if the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material...” This was the case as I entered the car park during a period of darkness.

Thanks for anyone who can offer any help on how to improve my case!

Fruitcake

Not a GPEOL was blown out of the water by the Beavis case in 2015. You are looking at out of date stuff.

I don't understand what you mean here,
"Do not have authority-membership of the Approved Operator Scheme …" Highview are BPA AoS members.

Not the landowner
No standing to bring charges in their name
Non PoFA compliant NTK (you need to show how the NTK fails PoFA)
Grace Periods
Not the same as Beavis
Inadequate signage (that point alone is longer than the whole of your previous post.)
Anything else relevant.

safiya

Mine was in regards to no permit so a grace period wouldn’t apply to me? I was also under the impression that not having authority-membership of the Approved Operator Scheme basically meant you don’t have permission from the landowner or specific contracts in place to issue PCN’s for their land? This was from one of the same appeals I saw that included the GPEOL, so it may be why it doesn’t make sense (although it was approved in 2017 so I assumed it was acceptable). So is the fact they are not a landowner a point in itself to not be able to issue charges for parking?

I also seen comment in regards to APN/using a camera, however I don’t know what legislative issue this causes? As that was used in my situation, but I don’t know if it should be involved and if so why?

safiya

Also, it says on the signage at the top it says Permit Holders Only and then further down it says "no parking or waiting on single or double marked lines or on hatched areas" and then "all bays reserved for valid permit holders only. Vehicles to be parked within marked bays." The charge is based on the fact that the driver failed to have a valid permit, however the picture shows that it is waiting on double yellow lines and not in the bay. Will it be counterproductive to use this as an argument?

KeithP

Can you please show us a picture of that sign?

From what you have said, that seems to be a forbidding sign.

A forbidding sign simply cannot form the basis of a contract, and as such there can be no breach of contract.

safiya

It won’t let me post with links so i removes the https:// but: postimg.cc/4YDNX4CQ

safiya

Can inadequate signage be an argument with that sign still, due to font? It is directed inwards so on entering the car park and being where the car was it’s not visible, you’d have to drive a little further in.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..

KeithP

https://postimg.cc/4YDNX4CQ

That's clearly a forbidding sign.

It forbids parking for everyone except permit holders.

It offers no licence to park to non permit holders.