PCN received for “parking” - didn’t leave car

Coupon-mad

Try searching the forum, it works brilliantly and that's all we do when we give links. Keywords should be two or three main words, no 'a' 'the'. Less is more. So maybe:

POPLA POFA Hirer

jonnyk

I have edited a successful appeal for my POPLA appeal as follows - would this be good to go: Trying to utilise the forum as best I can but also after reassurance before i push the button...

Defence Systems Ltd t/a Park Watch issued a parking charge to myself by post. As the hirer of the vehicle, I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA')

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator's Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle's keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA's attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a hirer appellant, yet no POFA ‘hirer 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. 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 hirer without a valid NTH.

As the hirer 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 'NTH' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the hirer and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a hirer 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.


Thanks

Coupon-mad

Those are fine for point #1 and #2. Now you just need to add the usual template #3 and #4 (signage and landowner authority, the long templates from the NEWBIES thread.

They are useful safety nets if POPLA are not with you on the NTH point, but to be fair it should be the winning point.

And add a new #5 about a lack of BPA grace periods because you said earlier:

There is no reference to duration spent, just the incident occurred at a specific minute of the day.

Search the forum for POPLA grace period fetch permit

Now I am not saying the driver WAS fetching a permit, but what you would be saying is there is NO EVIDENCE that the driver was not just reading the signs & fetching a visitor permit from adjacent premises, for which a grace period must be allowed, as a visiting driver does not arrive with a visitor permit in their possession, but are still 'authorised'.

Taking pictures over one minute do not allow a reasonable period of grace/observation.

jonnyk

Thank you very much, will continue this evening

jonnyk

Hi,

My POPLA appeal is shown below that I submitted a few days ago:

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXX

Defence Systems Ltd t/a Park Watch issued a parking charge to myself by post. As the hirer of the vehicle, I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA')

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator's Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle's keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA's attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a hirer appellant, yet no POFA ‘hirer 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. 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 hirer without a valid NTH.

As the hirer 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 'NTH' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the hirer and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a hirer 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.

3. The signs in this 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 note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

5. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The NTK fails to state the period of contravention and the hence Operator has not complied with BPA code 13.


The BPA’s Code of Practice Version 7 - January 2018 states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“They must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“You must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (28.4) 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. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association states:
“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.”

Finally, some 3 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:
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf

As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable grace period” and “grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) the terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

jonnyk

I'm not sure what my next steps should be now, as Park Watch have responded with the following challenge:

"
• The land the appellant’s vehicle has entered is private land, Park Watch has been given authorisation from the landlord to manage this land in line with the terms and conditions that are displayed in this area
• The registered keeper was issued with a parking charge notice Notice to Owner letter dated 10th May 2019 informing them of the alleged contravention
• A transfer of liability was received on the 24th May 2019
• A Notice to Hirer was issued on 27th May 2019
• An email of appeal was received on the 30th May 2019. Park Watch rejected the appeal and responded by letter on 6th June 2019 informing appellant of the outcome of their appeal
• Evidence 4A shows the vehicle in the area from 05:34pm to 05:43pm. Signage is highlighted in Ev4A
• The signage clearly states: Permit Holders only
• The hirer was issued a PCN for having No Permit, this vehicle does not have a permit. The hirer does not dispute that they do not have a permit. All vehicles that have a permit are added to the list. As the land is not patrolled by a warden , the vehicles dashboard cannot be inspected and therefore verify if a permit is displayed. The permits are electronic in the form of an exemption, all permits/ exemption are authorised and distributed by the centre management. Upon receipt of an exemption we add the relevant vehicle registration to the exemption list. You can see from Ev5 the hirers vehicle is not on the exemption list therefore does not have a permit.
• Evidence 6a is evidence of displayed entrance signage and warning signage stating Permit Holders only, a valid permit must be displayed for inspection at all times.
• Evidence 7 is a site plan showing the location of signage
• The signage displayed, in terms of size, amount and wording are within the guidelines stipulated within the BPA’s code of practice and is conspicuous and legible. You can see from EV6A entrance signs are displayed upon the entrance, it is not expected for a motorist to read the signage whilst driving. The purpose of the entrance signage is to alert motorist that terms and conditions apply and to acknowledge the signage within the area.
• Taking into consideration the size of the said area and numerous signs displayed a 5 minute grace period is operated, to allow motorists to read the signs, this has been exceeded. The contract commences and the terms accepted after this time. The appellant remained in their vehicle during their time in the area, no attempt was made to read the signage displayed. This is in line with 13.1 of the BPA’s code of practice as parking is not normally permitted; a grace period does apply but is not 10 minutes. 10 minutes applies to 13.2 where parking is permitted, such as a pay and display car park
• Evidence 2 is our landowner agreement
• When entering onto private land, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is parked appropriately and according to the terms and conditions that are clearly displayed
• Park Watch have taken reasonable steps to inform the appellant of the terms and conditions that apply to this land and therefore believe that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly"


This was one page of a pack of 28 with copies of all letters sent and photos showing that the car was in the car park for a total of 9 minutes. Are ParkWatch able to interpret the grace period in BPA CoP 13.1 as being 5 minutes, as this was a permit car park rather than ticket? The vehicle exceeded this limit, but was under the 10 minute grace period normally quoted.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Are ParkWatch able to interpret the grace period in BPA CoP 13.1 as being 5 minutes, as this was a permit car park rather than ticket?

Yes they will probably get away with that, so in your POPLA comments now concentrate ONLY on reminding POPLA of the winning point that ParkWatch have shown to be true:

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator's Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

That's it, job done, as long as you focus POPLA's mind on that alone.

Fruitcake

Go through their points one by one and demolish them.

In your appeal you have stated that the NTH did not meet the strict requirements of the PoFA with regard to paras 13 and 14. If they did not supply the other documentation as required by those para, you say so.

You say something like,
The scammers didn't supply a copy of the hire agreement, a statement from the hirer, nor refer to the NTK in breach of the PoFA para 14 therefore have failed to transfer liability to the hirer.

Then move on to their next point and rebut that, and so on.
You only have six days and 2000 characters to do this so you need to be frugal with your wording, and don't miss the deadline.

Attack the most critical points first then less important ones if you have characters to spare.

jonnyk

Thanks Both,

Does the statement referencing docs a) b) and c) stand ok on their own without:

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

As a 'Notice to Owner' - basically the 'Notice to Hirer' with different address, seems to have been submitted with their evidence pack. Would the following be an OK submission as response to POPLA - even though it is largely regurgitating earlier evidence?

"I would like to draw POPLA's attention to the fact that in order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance, the Park Watch's Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

Park Watch did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c), and therefore this parking charge must be cancelled."

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Very good, but in fact I would quote POPLA's own recent decisions and emulate their exact wording so the Assessor sees what you did and moves straight to confirming that you win!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75949932#Comment_75949932

Copy & adapt whole lines from that decision, like this:

After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator - and in the knowledge that the driver of the vehicle has never been identified - my comments are as follows and this omission is fatal to the parking firm's case:

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), it states that liability for unpaid parking charges can be transferred from the registered keeper to the registered hirer if “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper”.

The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. That is because they did not provide me with copies of any of these documents. The NTH arrived on its own in an envelope.

As a result, POPLA cannot confirm that PoFA 2012 has been complied with, and must conclude that the PCN (NTH in this case) has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, POPLA must allow this appeal and the PCN must be cancelled.