Ticket for parking in disabled bay

velour

Hi all,

I'm looking for a bit of advice on appealing a ticket from March this year. My car was parked in a disabled bay outside an office building following advice from the receptionist as the main car park was full. On returning the driver found a ticket on the windscreen from PPS (Private Parking Solutions London).
The driver spoke to the office manager a few days later who denied the driver would have been given this advice and refused to do anything so they waited 25 days and appealed the ticket via email to PPS. The driver has now received the email rejected, rejection letter and I have received the notice to owner.
Not sure what the next step is - the appeal rejection has a POPLA code so is that the right way forward? Do I have much chance given the denial by the centre manager?

Many thanks for any advice

Fruitcake

Edit your post to remove information about who parked. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, even on here.

As you have a PoPLA code, use all the template appeal points you will find available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Complain to the landowner and your MP about this unregulated scam. Point out that The Driver had permission to park in the disabled bay. Go back and get a statement from the receptionist in writing that he/she instructed you to park in the disabled bay. Point out you will be calling her as a witness if this gets to court so you will also need her name and address for service and she will need to clear her calendar if/when you get a hearing date.
Complain to the receptionist's boss/company CEO as well.

Get your own pics of the site and signage to include in your appeal.

Post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

velour

Thanks Fruitcake - appreciated. Original post edited and I'll look for an appropriate appeal template.

I'm not confident about the statement from the receptionist as they are now denying directing the driver to the disabled space.
The office building has only recently started using a parking company (un-managed before) so I think they probably gave old advice and don't want to be shown up. Unfortunately it was only a conversation so difficult to prove.

Fruitcake

velour wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake - appreciated. Original post edited and I'll look for an appropriate appeal template.

I'm not confident about the statement from the receptionist as they are now denying directing the driver to the disabled space.
The office building has only recently started using a parking company (un-managed before) so I think they probably gave old advice and don't want to be shown up. Unfortunately it was only a conversation so difficult to prove.

I would still go back and explain to the receptionist you will be calling them as a witness if it gets to court and point out that perjury is a criminal offence. Be polite but firm. Whatever you do, get his/her name and address and explain that is where the court will want to contact them.

The normal appeal points will include,

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges
Inadequate signage (which is why you need your own images of site and signage including the entrance)
Any PoFA failures in the NTK
Bedding in period (how long ago dis the PPC infested the site. The BPA CoP states they must allow a reasonable period for people to get used to the new regime).

Anything else relevant.

Compare the NTK (if you get one) with the PoFA requirements.

Post documents and images here for checking if you want. Upload them to a web hosting site such as postimages, tinypic, or similar and paste the URL here, but change http to hxxp. Someone here will then change it back to a live link.

Please do complain to your MP as well. Use the comments in red from post 1 of the NEWBIES as a guide.

Coupon-mad

I really hope the driver did NOT appeal saying they were the driver.

PPS (London) are BPA and would have been so easy to beat at POPLA, I expect (small firm who would be unlikely to issue a NTK with the right words). i see they even call it the wrong thing:

and I have received the notice to owner.

Show us your POPLA draft, you only have about 30 days to get that right.

velour

Hi,

Thanks again for all the help. Happy to confirm that the driver has not been identified, I appealed as the registered keeper for the vehicle.

I've copied the documents and pictures below:
- Parking sign
- Email appeal
- Email appeal rejection
- Appeal rejection letter
- Reminder notice received by letter

Looking through some threads it looks like I could appeal to POPLA on the basis that they have not answered my appeal about having the landowners permission and did not send the notification in accordance with the POFA 14 day timeframe. Any other guidance to support my appeal would be great before I post a draft appeal.

Many thanks...

hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/2lxb7lc.jpg (Reminder)

hxxp://i66.tinypic.com/2ijrqee.jpg (sign)

hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/ou64bo.jpg (appeal rejection letter)


Email appeal:

Re PCN number: xxx

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.
In this particular case I would like it noted that permission from the landowner had been obtained to park the vehicle and it is therefore very unclear why a PCN has been issued.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,

Email rejection:
Dear xxx,
Thank you for your email.

For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking, this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer, therefore, information or lack of information provided by an unauthorised third party would not change the validity of the PCN.
By remaining on the site, you have entered into a contract and has therefore accepted the terms and conditions included:
A VALID PARKING PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED ON THE WINDSCREEN
VEHILCLES PARKED IN DISABLED BAYS MUST DISPLAY A VALID BLUE BADGE AND A VALID PARKING PERMIT

The operative’s photographic evidence shows that your vehicle is parked on site with no valid blue badge and no valid permit on visible display for more than 7 minutes. This breached the terms of that site.
The signage makes it clear what the terms and conditions of the parking contract are and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available.
Please be informed that Section 13.2a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace period in spaces designated to specific users for example Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on display for enforcement officer to inspect.” Therefore, the operative is entitled to issue a PCN as soon as a vehicle has been left unattended in a disabled bay.
By choosing to park on site, and failing to ensure that you followed the parking terms, you have accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sched 4 (para 2) states that; the “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.
The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. To date, you, the Registered Keeper, have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver, yet you have failed to do so.
According to section 20.16 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice; “if the keeper does not reply within 28 days, or refuses to give enough details about the driver, under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 you are able to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.”
The relevant Notice was sent to the keeper in accordance with the Act and you are pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’) which states:
“The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.”


Please, find attached file with appeal letter and photographic evidence regarding PCN xxx.

Please, see further information related to your parking ticket on our website:

Let me inform you due to strict audits procedures we are unable to accept or deal with appeals verbally.

Coupon-mad

(Reminder) http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2lxb7lc&s=9#.XMbHQehKjIU

(sign) http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ijrqee&s=9#.XMbHgOhKjIU

(rejection) http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ou64bo&s=9#.XMbJP-hKjIU

it looks like I could appeal to POPLA on the basis that they have not answered my appeal about having the landowners permission

Yes - that plus 'dodgy signs' are always on POPLA appeals.

However the sign there is clear so don't use that actual image in your appeal!

and did not send the notification in accordance with the POFA 14 day timeframe.

No. If there was a windscreen PCN then para 8 of the POFA applies and they obviously got that timeline right as the 'reminder' is the NTK.

You could argue that the 'if after 29 days...' sentence in the final para is not exactly what 8(2)f of the POFA says - and I would - but POPLA might not buy this argument, as they let Premier Park use the 'if after 29 days' wording.

Still, throw it ALL at PPS (London) as they might struggle to handle it all.

And press that Receptionist to admit he/she gave permission - try an email and say politely that you need it for your appeal, to show you had permission. He/she might reply to confirm it. NO PHONING.

velour

Hi,

I've also just found out that the car park only started being controlled by PPS at the end of February (this ticket was issued on 7 March), previously it was uncontrolled / policed by the building management. The driver is an infrequent visitor and apparently there were no notices that the parking arrangements had changed inside the building, only the external signage.

Is there any kind of grace period expected when the parking controls change - the main reason that the driver was happy to park in that space was that they had been directed to do this many times in the past?

Coupon-mad

Well yes, as you'd see if you read the BPA CoP! First port of call.

The_Deep

They are obviously trying to scam you so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

velour

Hi all,
Thanks again for all the help so far. I have posted below my draft POPLA appeal letter, I'd be higely grateful for any comments or suggestions.

Appeal re Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd Charge
Reference number: xxx
Car Park: xxx
Date: 7 March 2019
Registration: xxx
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and am appealing against the above charge. I content that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
1. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts
2. The appeal process conducted by the parking company did not consider all of the information provided in the appeal
3. The driver had been given permission to park by the landowner
4. The notice to keeper is invalid as it did not include all details required by POFA
5. No consideration has been given for the pre-existing contract with the driver
6. No grace period has been allowed to account for a recent change in parking enforcement
7. The signage detailing the change in parking enforcement was inadequate
Here are the detailed appeal points.
1. No valid contract with the landowner
It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company
2. The appeal process conducted by the parking company did not consider all of the information provided
As the registered keeper I appealed the charge by email on 1st April 2019. The full text of this appeal together with the email response and appeal rejection letter are attached to this document. In the appeal I was specific that the driver had been given permission by the landowner to park in the disabled space – in this case permission was given verbally by the office receptionist. Although this point was clearly made, neither the appeal rejection email or letter refer to or answer this highly relevant point. Section 22.4 of the AOS code of practice states “If a driver or keeper appeals a parking charge you must review the case…”. In this instance this has clearly not happened as all of the evidence submitted has not been properly considered.
3. The driver had been given permission to park by the landowner
The driver makes irregular use of this office building as they have access to the [office use] programme that allows infrequent use of the business lounge facilities in the building. Having made use of these facilities in the past the driver requested permission to park in the disabled space as the car park was full and had always received it. On this occasion the same issue happened and the driver was again given permission to park in a disabled space.
4. The Notice to Keeper is invalid
The reminder letter dated 10th April 2019, sent to the registered keeper did not contain all of the details required according to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4, Section 8 (2) (a) states that “The notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
However, the reminder letter received (attached to this document) only states the time that the ticket was issued (12:25) and does not refer to the period of time when the vehicle was observed. This is contrary to the requirements of that act.
5. Pre-exising contract obligations and novation agreements (transfer of obligations)
The landowner previously allowed drivers to park on their land without any charges imposed i.e. before this parking company was engaged and new arrangements started at the end of February 2019. As a pre-existing contract obligation, new terms should have been provided in advance by both the parking company and the landowner and agreed by the driver in order to novate the existing contract and transfer the obligation. No such novation and agreement occurred.
6. No grace period covering a change in parking arrangements seems to have been allowed
Paragraph 18.11 of the AOS code of practice (Update v6, Oct 2015) states, “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.”
The parking arrangements for this site changed at the end of February 2019 to impose parking restrictions managed by the parking company. Previously there was no parking liability as governed by the code of practice. This ticket was issued on 7 March 2019 to a driver who was an infrequent visitor to the car park / office by virtue of the nature of business of the office served by the car park. The driver had previously parked in exactly the same way on multiple occasions over multiple years with no issue or penalty. The parking company has clearly not provided an adequate provision to allow infrequent users to be informed and become familiar with the new liability associated with the new parking arrangements. The vehicle had not been parked in that car park since late January 2019.
7. The signage detailing the change in parking arrangements was inadequate
Although there are parking signs erected externally at the site, no consideration has been provided to draw attention to the fact that this was a new parking arrangement (in existence for approximately 2 weeks only) and there was no signage internally to draw an infrequent visitors attention to the new arrangements. As an infrequent visitor the driver was not given sufficient opportunity to become aware of the new liability as there was no wording on the car park signage to draw attention to the new parking terms and conditions, again in contravention on the AOS code of practice paragraph 18.11. A photo of the car park sign is attached to this document.