Grace Period

rachity

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sort of self-taught...read some books when you had time on your hands?

http://www.selfication.com/self-improvement/how-to-read-more-books/


:rotfl:

Agent_Gibbs

Update..... Parking Eye have turned down the appeal and issued a POPLA code, so what happens next?

Coupon-mad

Agent_Gibbs wrote: »

Update..... Parking Eye have turned down the appeal and issued a POPLA code, so what happens next?

We hope, you will read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and show us your draft.

Agent_Gibbs

OK try this, my 1st draft -

POPLAVerificationCode: *******
Vehicle Registration: ******,

The registered keeper of this vehicle received a letter dated 06/04/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator –ParkingEye –was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 13/04/2019 and rejected via an email dated 29/04/2019.
I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1.Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice 2019 –non-compliance
Under the new code of practise (15/03/2019) Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs, states the following - there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.
Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods?fbclid=IwAR347R1ULeXKZvPz7ArWZ3hBl-5-1EV949-dc4oHbU0NQreZcvRZDrqanQg

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, 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.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''



3 No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
ParkingEye’ NtK simply claims “the time in car park ********.”
The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered ****** at 10:17:39 and departed at 10:30:35”. At no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

Redx

add poor and inadequate signage and no landowner authority too

Coupon-mad

Where's dodgy signs and no landowner authority (they go in EVERY POPLA appeal)?

Agent_Gibbs

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Where's dodgy signs and no landowner authority (they go in EVERY POPLA appeal)?

Because these have yet to be verify

Agent_Gibbs

Redx wrote: »

add poor and inadequate signage and no landowner authority too

Because these have yet to be verify

Redx

Agent_Gibbs wrote: »

Because these have yet to be verify

then you should have said so at the start of the popla appeal post #25 above

Agent_Gibbs

Redx wrote: »

then you should have said so at the start of the popla appeal post #25 above

To verify this then the car park requires to be visited to confirm this and it's only a 1st draft, work in progress