Fistral Beach, Newquay, INITIAL Parking CO. PCN - NTK

crazyarnold

Hi All,
I received a PCN – NTK from INITIAL Parking Co. for contravention @ Fistral Beach, Newquay.
CAR PARK: Fistral Beach, Newquay,
Date of Notice: 6th June, 2019
Date of Claimed Contravention: 25th May, 2019
Date PCN Received by Keeper by Post: 17th June, 2019

I received the notice more than 14 days after the contravention date. The notice does not mention of POFA.

I appealed to INITIAL Parking on 18th June via their website saying that it was my wife (but did not give her name) driving the car on that day and she has confirmed that the Parking fees was paid.

However, they rejected the appeal on 19th June, saying that payment was made for X hours only whereas the vehicle was on site for X Hours, 40 Mins. They sent the rejection letter by email addressed to registered keeper. (Email was sent on my wife’s email since that was the email given which has her name in email ID).

They have asked to pay £60 within 14 days. Now is that 14 days from date of notice or from the date the appeal was rejected? and £100 within 28 days.
They have mentioned the POPLA verification code on the rejection letter as an option to appeal to POPLA.

Some Background of what happened that day – Obviously did not see the sign they has posted about parking regulation. We were travelling with 9 months baby.
So, firstly it took some time to find parking space and then some time to get all the stuff out for baby to get the baby to beach and then look for payment point. We paid for X hours and went to the beach, left the parking ticket on windscreen. We returned back to vehicle by X hours, but then took some time to get things cleaned up before putting all stuff back in car and getting the baby ready too, hence may have been about extra 40 mins total before & after.

With above details: what chance do I have to appeal and succeed with POPLA based on following grounds? Or if you can please suggest other grounds on which I can appeal with POPLA ?
1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.
2. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
3. 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.
4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards andt here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.
5. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Fruitcake

What happened on the day is mostly irrelevant. Mitigating circumstances won't work at PoPLA.

What a shame you told the scammers who was driving. They may well be able to determine that person's identity, especially if the keeper and driver share a surname and address.

Appeal to PoPLA using all the relevant points available from post 3 of the NEWBIES. Include non PoFA complaint NTK, spelling out the failure in words of one syllable or less, but be aware that the scammers may issue a new PCN to the driver which will negate that point.

Get your appeal in quick just in case they try to go after them instead of the keeper, but post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

Get rid of points 1 and 2 as PoPLA won't consider it.
Point 5 is nearly four years out of date and won't work.

Redx

You can argue 3 and 4 plus other factors like POFA , BPA Cop failures etc

But not 1, 2 and 5

crazyarnold

Thanks Fruitcake:

Can you please send me link to Post 3 of Newbies ? I was trying to search for it since last night, but not sure if I found the right one.

Redx

Top of this forum above your thread

Third thread down

Read post #1 followed by post #3

crazyarnold

Hi Fruitcake & REDX,

I just checked again and the notice does mention of POFA for after 29 days. What does that do to my appeal ?

Umkomaas

There have been very recent cases involving Initial at Fistral. I think in every case they have withdrawn the charges, either when they've submitted the forum initial appeal template (you're beyond that stage now), or when a forum-assisted POPLA appeal has been made.

Undertake a forum search using keywords Initial Fistral and read how others have dealt with them and follow advice given which has resulted in successful outcome.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

crazyarnold

Please review the below Appeal Content and recommend if it needs any further updates ?

POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge from INITIAL Parking. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified. I contend 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 signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.
Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No valid contract with 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 signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Also ensuring that the car park has enough room to allow oncoming vehicles to pass by just enough to ensure that the driver while driving can concentrate on other surrounding with minimum safety.
The Entrance road to the car park is very narrow and the oncoming vehicles trying to get out of the carpark have to pass by very close, due to narrow road and can easily hide away the parking signs from the view angle on the driver entering the car park while driving. It was a beach car park, very sunny and busy day, all tourists were walking along the car park with their little kids running around and hence driver must concentrate more on the safety of public.
Also, It has to be validated / provide evidence that the signage are at appropriate height feasible to be read without straining anyone’s eye on a bright sunny day and not causing the driver to strain their eyes and risk their onward journey ?
I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

Fruitcake

The Landowner Authority point is only two lines compared with the full page appeal point in the NEWBIES.

Your whole appeal is shorter than just the "inadequate signage" signage point from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

You should use them instead.

You need to check the NTK against the strict requirements of the PoFA, line by line especially paragraphs 8 or 9 whichever applies. Note that the PoFA does not mention 29 days.

You can post a redacted copy of the NTK here if you wish. Upload it to a web hosting site such as postimage, tinypic, or similar then post the URL here but change http to hxxp.
Someone here will change it back to a live link.

Most important of all, edit post 4 to remove incriminating information about electronic identities. You have posted information the scammers didn't previously have, adding to the information you already gave them, then ask if they might look for it. They won't need to, it's already in plain view!

Redx

The shear amount of personal details people post on the internet is unbelievable

No doubt their faceache profiles will be easily found and read with extra details pertaining to birthdays and anniversaries and pet names too. A paradise for sc@mmers

crazyarnold

[IMG]hxxp /i63.tinypic.com/2q01qoj.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http /i66.tinypic.com/6te2iv.jpg[/IMG]

NTK