Arena Shopping Centre

NewJoiner

Dear Edna, sorry for the late acknowledgement I was away and only got to read it now, thank you very much for that. I will certainly consider your advise. Still working on my Popla, didn't get any support so far from the retailers or the MP, I hope I will be able to find a way to win this.

NewJoiner

Looking at the POFA 8.2 (a) - specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; - Do you think it should be stated for a PCN that is not related to duration? @Big Boi pointed it as well...
@Edna - Looked at the thread and what you pointed out, there might be something here, I'm adding it to my popla.

Thanks!

NewJoiner

One more question please about the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing - Should it be used in any case for the Popla?

NewJoiner

Can I please ask you to review the first draft of Popla? I have yet to complete the 3rd section, still working on the pictures, etc.
Thank you!

Dear POPLA,

On the XXX, Parkwatch. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle was “parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at Arena Shopping Centre…”

As the appellant I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

2) Parkwatch lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver



1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:

• The NTK fails to identify the driver
• Failure to provide the NTK with
• Failure to specify the relevant land upon which the vehicle was parked

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met as outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Parkwatch have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK, as outlined within paragraph 9. Specifically, they have failed to include the mandatory timeline and wording:

The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

This appeal would like to specifically highlight subsection (b) as the received NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9 (5) defines a relevant period as “..the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The Appellant is not liable for any charges, as the Notice to Keeper has not been properly ‘given’ under the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012.

To offer further context to this point, ParkingEye Ltd. has also omitted the following wording from paragraph 7 (2), of schedule 4, of POFA 2012:

’The notice must –
(a) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose…and the other facts that made those charges payable…

Upon receiving the Notice to Keeper, it lacked any specified period of parking.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge


Under Paragraph 9 (2) (a) of Schedule 4 of POFA
9
(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

Upon receiving the Notice to Keeper it lacked any detailed or accurate description of relevant land to which said vehicle was parked. The notice to keeper only states Arena Shopping Centre without showing any other relevant information to the land i.e. town or postcode.

The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.

The operator has not followed protocol and has not stated the location of said charge correctly.



2) Parkwatch lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Parkwatch does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Parkwatch be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

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

I, the appellant do not believe that Parkwatch had the authority of the landowner.

Coupon-mad

I, the appellant do not

Ouch, remove that split infinitive please before I self combust! That poor lonely verb.

NewJoiner

Will do :-) any other comments?

NewJoiner

Coupon-mad - Thank you again for your help. I have finished the draft appeal and your comments will be very much appreciated.

It can be found here - XXX://www.scribd.com/document/418732192/Popla

Coupon-mad

It quotes para 9 of POFA, 14 days. That's the wrong para, as I said in my first reply.

NewJoiner

POFA para 6 refers to both 8 and 9, as the keeper it is 9 unless I got it wrong...

The_Deep

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Ouch, remove that split infinitive please before I self combust! That poor lonely verb.

I see nothing wrong with them.