One Parking Solution - Visitors Space PCN

Coupon-mad

No it has not changed. Maybe you found some badly written rebuttals.

It's not even meant to be a rebuttal. It's 'comments on the evidence'.

AOneVS

Ok, I've got this for starters (~1200 chars):

The operator has not provided names of people who have signed the contract & there are no witness signatories for either party. A redacted contract cannot prove who signed it nor prove that authority was in place at the material date.

In addition, it is not within the management agents right (as no evidence has been produced to support this) that they can alter the terms of my lease without mine (or any other lessees) acknowledgement or signed agreement. No correspondence regarding these parking charges or conditions were voiced to lessees of the site, which therefore means the terms outlined in my lease (shown in my appeal) take precedence.

The contract states the site and road names. The car was parked on X Close but this is not included in the road names stated in the contract. The road is incorrectly named X Croft.

Site Photos (2).jpeg shows the sign at the entrance of the estate. This is not clearly visible from a car entering the estate, being elevated on a lamp post. The blurry image of OPS140016 photos (14).jpg shows how this might look.

OPS140016 photos (13).jpg shows the position of the sign at the visitors parking. Their photo is lit with a flash and the sign is not clearly visible, as shown in my appeal.

nosferatu1001

1) The alleged "contract " has had the names and positions of the signatories redacted. As I must have access to the same evidence as that sent to POPLA, this does not provide sufficient proof that a validly executed contract is in place and as such the appeal must be upheld.
2) Ebven if POPLA accept this unverified "contract", the operator has failed to provide proof that any validly executed lease variation was agreed. My lease, exhibited at..., clearly has primacy of contract. The operator is a stranger, and has offered no contract to which a lesee need take up.
3) The "contract" states the location that the operator claims to have authority over as "Y Croft". This location does not exist, and therefore the claimant has no standing. This is a material failing inthe contract.
4) etc

Coupon-mad

Does the date of the contract lend itself to you suggesting that it may have expired, as there is no evidence that it was a rolling contract or renewed, or continued into perpetuity?

That's always one POPLA seem to like, if the contract date is quite old.

AOneVS

Unfortunately not. OPS took over from UKCPM in March last year. The contract was in effect at the time of the ticket.

Coupon-mad

and the NTK that was sent to the old address.

When she appealed to the windscreen PCN before that, did she give them her postal address? If so, tell POPLA that OPS knew her current address (prove it from the appeal wording/copy) and instead sent a NTK to her old address. There is no excuse for this, not even that the old address was given out by the DVLA, because the operator already had the new address from the data subject and could see she was one and the same person - the appellant was the keeper and she had supplied a perfectly usable address for service, earlier than the DVLA look-up occurred.

As such, the NTK was never properly served and there can be no keeper liability.

AOneVS

POPLA are now looking at this one. I'm 50:50 as to whether I'll be successful or not.

In the meantime, a friend of mine got a ticket while visiting us, but we weren't in so they couldn't display a permit. To save the hassle of appealing I decided to contact the managing agent. Basically, the contract that OPS provided shows that they accept cancellation requests from the MA. But I'm not having any success with them.

Can the MA refuse to cancel a ticket?

KeithP

AOneVS wrote: »

Can the MA refuse to cancel a ticket?

Yes of course they can.

Just like you can refuse to do anything I ask you to do.

Coupon-mad

Your friend needs to follow the NEWBIES thread to the letter. Appeal on day 26 as keeper, not saying who was driving.

As for your case, so what if it's lost? OPS rarely try court and are very beatable, no risk!

AOneVS

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Rebecca Fryer
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failure to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant’s case is that the operator has no land owner authority. She states the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 therefore, there is no evidence the individual being pursued is liable for the charge. The appellant states 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.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA.) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Parking is permitted for visiting vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid OPS visitor parking permit in the front windscreen and fully parked within the confines of a marked visitor bay for up to a maximum stay of 4 hour…by parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you, you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms…you agree to pay a parking charge notice in the sum of £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked on the car park at [] November 2018. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit. The appellant states that the operator has no authority to issue PCNs on the land. He says they are in breach of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided a witness statement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Section 22.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. The appellant explains that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 therefore, there is no evidence the individual being pursued is liable for the charge. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and can see this states “You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Sending), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This notice is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act. Failure to pay this charge may result in enforcement action which may include debt recovery and/or county court proceedings which may incur additional costs”. This allows the operator to pursue the appellant for the PCN as the registered keeper. I am satisfied the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. The appellant states 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. I have reviewed the signs located throughout the car park and can see the terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs. The appellant was parked in the visitor’s area and there are two signs located within the 4 bay visitors area. The signs are prominent and contain all the necessary information. The signs are located on a fence and on a pole to ensure these are visible to all motorists. The signs also state the amount of the parking charge notice which is in a bolder font that the rest of the sign. I am satisfied the signage is complaint with the requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to display a valid permit when parking, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal