Popla appeal - Civil Enforcement - Grace period

digga

I will complain to the MP, but I still need this PCN off my back.


Can someone review my verbiage above before I send it ?
If I don't get anything back, I will just send section 1 and hope for the best.



thanks

Coupon-mad

This section quotes the wrong part of the POFA. You want para 9, not 8:

6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

This should be won on grace periods but keep the other points in except the one about unreliable ANPR (you can't prove it).

And remove the duplication (#4 & #5 are about the same thing, so remove #5).

I would make it easier for the POPLA assessor and break your first point down into 'arrival' and 'leaving' and mention the 3 year old being with the driver:

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

As registered keeper, I received a ludicrously unfair parking charge notice in the post, which states that this car was at a large car park location from: 13:58->16:11, being the times the VRN was first and last seen at the distant entrance & exit.

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start - and there MUST be time given on arrival, clearly, or CEL and the BPA are living on another planet.

(a) On arrival - less than 5 minutes

The driver had a 3 year old with them, which slows a driver down in terms of safety and speed of walking, but still managed to complete all of this within five minutes flat:

drive into the large car park
drive round looking for a space (it was busy, according to the driver)
find a space
park in that space
unstrap the toddler, grab bags and belongings
lock the car
look for signs or the nearest machine
walk with the toddler to the nearest machine
read the sign, find the right money and queue to pay
pay at the machine & display the ticket/receipt allowing 2 hours parking from 14:03.

The BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.''

The BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you...”

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy has stated in a BPA article:

“The BPA’s 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.” “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.”

Clearly a driver can NEVER be expected to have taken no time at all on arrival or had an opportunity to read the t&cs and if POPLA believe that to be true, then POPLA are accepting from CEL's own evidence, that the driver was allowed NO time to read any terms and thus, can't be bound by them.


(b) On leaving - 8 minutes

The car was captured by ANPR leaving past the exit at or around 16:11, if this operator's timings are to be believed. Even if you take that as true and believe the cameras are synchronised, this is merely 8 minutes after the paid-for time expired.

This is well within a reasonable grace period to leave, given the size of this large car park, how busy it was, and that the driver had a toddler to safely strap in, and bags to load in the boot before vacating the space, and then traversing the site to queue to exit.

The BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Finally, as POPLA is well aware as you will have read this before in informed POPLA appeals - even though the BPA appears to be hoping everyone has forgotten it - some 4 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.”

(Source: LINK REMOVED)

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that an allegation of under eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.

Civil Enforcement, on this occasion, have shown on their PCN the entry and exit times from the car park only. The entry/exit times are not the ‘period of parking’ and the law - the POFA - talk about a ‘period of parking’, not a total stay onsite in moving traffic.

The signs offering tariffs talk about a parking period, not a 'total stay'. The driver did not breach any terms at all. Taking into account the time of travelling to a parking space and travelling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory grace periods as outlined above.

Like I say, you need most of the other points too (except the ones I said to remove, above).

digga

Coupon mad, thanks for your detailed response, very helpful.
I have amended this to para "9", removed 5+6 and replaced 1 with your copy, as it's more specific.



I have amended my document accordingly, I cannot post a link to the full document as i'm a new user, but will update this case with how it turns out.

KeithP

Please can you also change the thread title to something more meaningful?

digga

Keithp, There doesn't appear to be a way to do this, unless you know how?
cloudfare kept blocking the original thread post, appeared to be because there was too many words

KeithP

Go into edit on your opening post.

Click on Advanced.

Type what you want in the Title box.

Le_Kirk

KeithP wrote: »

Go into edit on your opening post.

Click on Advanced.

Type what you want in the Title box.

........ unless you are trying to use the forum on a mobile!!!