Parked longer than the maximum period allowed

KeithP

Here are some pictures I took earlier today at Solent Retail Park Havant:

https://imgur.com/a/Df6O5n9

The first one is the entrance sign that you can see on GSV.

The second picture shows that the £100 charge is far from prominent.

The third picture shows the very small writing on the signs.
The heading for that block of small text is "IMPORTANT NOTICE".

All these signs are at least 8ft up a pole.
I couldn't read that small print standing on the ground right next to the signs.

Brucella

I appealed to POPLA using the standard text and now Euro Car Parks have submitted their evidence. I wonder if anyone can offer any advice on how I should respond:

Landowner Authority

Their document looks pretty good but maybe someone can spot something that could be challenged:

https://i.postimg.cc/Df4DRrK2/Contract1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/D0GMsTcW/Contract2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Yqz1k3gQ/Contract3.jpg

a) The address is slightly different from the PCN
b) No site plan is included to verify the correct site
c) No agreement included to verify that they are operating in the manner specified

Signage

What do you think of this sign? There were placed high on a pole and there weren't many of them:

https://i.postimg.cc/28pJY1zn/Sign.jpg

Any advice gratefully received
Thanks

Umkomaas

1. Check the contract (it’s a bit blurry and difficult to expand on my iPad) for start and end date.. If there is no indication as to the duration of the contract there is nothing to indicate whether the contract was still in force at the point of the parking event. That appeal point has previously won at POPLA - but you need to dissect the detail of the contract.

2. From the contract (my blurry image) it’s not clear who ‘Hargreaves’ are in being able to contract with ECP. As there has been no written confirmation you should argue there is no line of authority emanating from the landowner to Hargreaves, and therefore the contract does not meet the BPA Code of Practice (part 7). Tenuous point to make, but if you don’t make it, you’re deemed to have accepted it.

3. The signage does not meet the standard set by The Supreme Court in PE v Beavis, insofar as the ‘penalty’ charge is not prominent, hidden in tiny font among detailed text, therefore no certainty of terms, necessary to meet contract law standards.

https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/contract-law/formation/certainty/lecture.php

Brucella

Thank you Umkomaas

Hargreaves are the landlords I'm afraid and there is a start and finish date. I guess that they get it right sometimes?

However, my main defence is the NtK was sent outside of the 14d window. What is confusing in the evidence, is that they include the PCN (NtK) but also an identical facsimile of this labelled Final Notification Letter - even though I only received the one document through the post. Is this significant?

Coupon-mad

Not if there was no earlier document they have shown that acts as a postal PCN.

ECP usually post a 'Parking Charge Notice' in time, then follow it with a Notice to Keeper. If you are saying there was no letter (whether it be a PCN or a NTK) posted to get to you by day 14, then that's the main thing to point out, as long as there is nothing to make POPLA think you were the driver.

Brucella

Apologies for the long post, however my question is extremely simple. Is POPLA interpreting PoFA correctly - namely the difference between an NtK being sent and given. Both my appeal and complaint have been rejected and they say that they will not respond any further. What should I do?



I appealed to POPLA on the various grounds discussed above. My appeal was rejected. The one solid ground that I thought I had was that the Notice to Keeper was not received by me, the Keeper, within the 14day window under PoFA. I only received an NtK by post and there was no windscreen notice.

My appeal said:


The alleged parking contravention occurred on 15th August 2019, the date of the issue of the notice is stated to be 30th August. The date of the notice being 'given' (i.e., delivered) is assumed by PoFA to be the second working day after the date of posting. This puts it on 3rd September. The 14 day notice period begins on 16th August (day 1) and day 14 of the notice period is therefore 29th August. Indeed, the Parking Charge Notice was not issue until after the 14 day period had expired.
They cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.


The appeal rejection said:

I am being charge as registered keeper of the vehicle but the notice to keeper was not compliant with the Protect of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
The event occurred on 15 August 2019 and the PCN was issued on 30 August 2019.
Paragraph 9 (5) of PoFA 2012 states: The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
Therefore, the day after the period of parking was 16 August and the 14 day period from this date allows up to 30 August, the date on which the PCN was issued.
I am satisfied that the PCN was issued within the correct relevant period, and the appellant has clearly been identified as the keeper.

I complained to pOLA under their complaints procedure, saying:


One of the main grounds for my appeal to POPLA was that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was sent by the parking operator was outside the time period laid down in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in which the operator needs to inform the Keeper, in my case by mail.

The Act states:

(4) 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.

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
In other words, the time limit is nothing to do with the NtK being issued, but about it being given i.e. received. Your assessor did not apply the legislation correctly.

I received the NtK outside of the statutory period and so my appeal should be allowed.


I received a rejection of my complaint, stating:


I note that you feel the NTK does not comply with PoFA 2012. You state that the notice was not received within the relevant period.

However, having looked at the document, I can see that the date of the contravention was 15 August 2019. Therefore, the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The 14 days would start after the 16th meaning that the last day to send the notice was the 30th August 2019. The NTK was issued on the 30th August therefore, has complied with PoFA 2012.

Please note that within PoFA it states:-

(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

Although you state you did not receive this within the relevant period, you have not proved this. And therefore, it is presumed to have been delivered.

I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct.

As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter. For clarity, should you choose to reply it will be noted, however we will not respond.


Am I interpreting PoFA incorrectly?
What should I do next?
Is it possible to contact How can I get in touch with John Gallagher directly?
Would that help?

Any advice most gratefully received!

Brucella

Has anyone else encountered the issue of POPLA misinterpreting the difference between an NtK being sent and given in PoFA as described in the previous post?

If so, how have you dealt with it?

Citizen's Advice gave me conflicting advice

Umkomaas

Brucella wrote: »

Has anyone else encountered the issue of POPLA misinterpreting the difference between an NtK being sent and given in PoFA as described in the previous post?

If so, how have you dealt with it?

Read MinnieSox9's thread. There's no resolution (as yet), it will take a Judge to deal with it - if the PPC take it that far. You might get some further ideas from reading it.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6027099/fistral-beach-newquay-inital-parking-please-help

Citizen's Advice gave me conflicting advice

What were you hoping for, they are absolutely hopeless on private parking charges, especially when they're reading from briefing notes provided by the BPA?

Brucella

Thank you Umkomaas. I will follow MinnieSox9 progress with interest.

My complaints handler was the same one who dismissed MinnieSox9's complaint - Ashlea Forshaw

Are there any POPLA decisions that have correctly interpreted the given/sent issue? I have searched without success. Perhaps if we can cite those, we may get the penny to drop.

Otherwise, I presume that no one has Gallagher's direct contact details?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Are there any POPLA decisions that have correctly interpreted the given/sent issue? I have searched without success. Perhaps if we can cite those, we may get the penny to drop.

Have you searched the last few pages of the POPLA Decisions sticky. There might be a case there from memory. To be honest we deal with masses of cases every day that we'd have to do the same search that you would need to do. It's manic here at times, so we have to leave individuals to search the forum for their particular queries.

We don't have a direct email for John Gallagher, so why not go to the top - Matthew Vickers - and not only complain about the assessor's error, but also the lack of access to POPLA's Lead Adjudicator, and the inability to request a review of the Complaint Handler's decision - which backs (and compounds) the error made by the assessor.

These errors are placing the motorist, unfairly, in danger of being sued in the courts.