Read *Newbie* still a little confused

U_R_Kidding

Have read the Newbie thread about pcn's etc. Noticed when you had a pcn attached to the car to delay until 26th day to appeal but received a pcn via post, does the 26 day to appeal still apply? When does the 26 day begin? The date of the alleged offence or the date of the pcn?

Got this ready to send to them that was taken from Newbie thread but added second paragraph:

Re PCN number: XXXXXX

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.

The fact that an elderly person (no blue badge but with a walking aid) with a long-term debilitating conditions was being picked up and will be legally entitled to a ‘reasonable adjustment’. That can and should include an extension of time, over and above free or paid-for parking time.

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.

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,

My Name as vehicle Keeper.

This is the PCN through the post from Park Watch:

Dear U_R_Kidding

We have issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) xxxxxx to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at One Stop Shopping Centre, Brimingham, B42 1AA – Red Route that we are authorised to manage on the xx xxxxxxxxx 2019 at xxxx. The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions.

The Parking Charge Notice is discounted to £60.00 if paid within 14 days of the date of issue. If you choose to not pay at this amount, the full value of £100.00 will be due.

We have requested your details from the DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle (through the Reasonable Cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding parking charge). The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows: Stopping in a No Stopping Area.

Omission on the photographs supplied:
Date and time and location wasn't present on the photographs on the PCN that was issued to me as the keeper.

Only way to reply is email or letter. Obviously the latter.

Redx

a postal notice should be appealed within 28 days , no need to delay for 26 days , that is only when a windscreen pcn is issued to the driver

a postal notice to a keeper can be appealed anytime before the 28th day, as keeper , with the blue text template , unchanged , typically this will be 7 to 14 days after receipt

no blabbing about who was driving, not even on here (read your post above and amend it , the driver was picking somebody up , no "MY , ME , MYSELF & I"

Fruitcake

If you reply by post, do it first class from a Post Office counter and obtain a free proof of posting. Don't forget to keep a copy.

Alternatively generate a throw away email account such as Gmail just for parking charges. Don't forget to keep a copy and ideally send a copy to yourself as proof of sending. This is a better method than posting as it is less likely to get lost.

Appeal as keeper, not owner.

Now you have a NTK there is no need to wait.

Complain to the BPA and DVLA that stopping in a no stopping area is not a parking event and therefore obtaining keeper details for such is outwith the scammers KADOE contract with the DVLA, which must be used only for parking events.

Was the NTK PoFA compliant? The date of the alleged event is day zero. Where a windscreen ticket is given then the NTK must arrive between day 28 and 56 for keeper liability to apply.
If a NTD or a "This is not a PCN" card was left, then the NTK must arrive by day 14 for keeper liability to apply.
In addition, the PoFA wording must be used for keeper liability to apply, so you need to compare it with the strict requirements of the PoFA.

Get pics of the site and signage ready for PoPLA as well as making yourself familiar with the PoFA.

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread makes it clear that the 'wait till day 26' tactic is only for windscreen PCNs, and why.

Nothing tells people with a postal one to delay the template appeal, except for the very clear advice to COMPLAIN TO THE LANDOWNER FIRST.

EXHAUST THAT AVENUE well before appealing.

U_R_Kidding

Having trouble with copying and pasting my popla appeal letter that I have already sent in as Park Watch had rejected my appeal. When I put in my code for POPLA the name for the parking firm was different from Park Watch.

I copied the whole document into notepad and then copied from there as previously doing this, this ip got banned as I copied directly from word.

Things are not going straight forward again as I got this message when trying to post again but from copying from notepad:

"We're sorry. Either your session timed out or has changed. Resulting in an missing security token. Please click Back, reload and try again. Please accept our apologies for any inconvience. These precautionary errors are necessary occasionally to protect your online identity."

U_R_Kidding

POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxx
PCN: xxxxxx

I the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxx xxxxxxxx 2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Park Watch – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx xxxxxxxxxx 2019 and rejected via an email dated xx xxxxxxx 2019 with a hyperlink to view the rejection. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Grace period: BPA Code of Practise – non-compliance.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
3. No time or date on the photographs on the PCN notice.
4. Signage shows that Parking is free up to the first 4 hours, but the driver didn’t park on the red lines.
5. PCN (parking charge notice) issued for: Stopping in a No Stopping Area.
6. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
7. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
9. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate.
10. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.
11. Red line markings – private land.


1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
The BPA’s Code of Practice 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:
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

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 (18.5) 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.

Amended Clauses 2 January 2018:
Clause 13.1 and 30.1 - If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted 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.
This clause was re-worded.


Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
“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 on person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

Finally, some 4 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:
BPA Meeting and Governors)

This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: ‘a minimum of ten minutes’ in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum – a minimum requirement) meant to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes is perfectly reasonable.
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 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 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) terms and conditions decide not to enter into a contract and the leave the car park.
It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit as Park Watch have not stated time entered and left the ‘No Stopping Area’ as the driver stopped to pick up an elderly person (no blue badge but with a walking aid) with a long-term debilitating conditions and will be legally entitled to reasonable adjustment.’ That can and should include an extension of time, over and above free or paid-for parking time.
All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
• Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
• Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
• Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
• Driver aiding an elderly person with walking difficulties to the car and loading her things and walking aid.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA ‘keeper 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 presumptions 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 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. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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 keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper 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 ‘NTK’ was served or not, because that fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper 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 the terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previoius POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the drive of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. […] if {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
“I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable to charge. As I am allowing the appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”

3. No time or date on the photographs on the PCN notice.
As the photographs don’t show time and date of entry and leaving the ‘no stopping area’ therefore cannot say the vehicle was ‘parked’. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

4. Signage shows that Parking is free up to the first 4 hours.

5. PCN (parking charge notice) issued for: Stopping in a No Stopping Area.

On the PCN (Parking Charge Notice) it states:
“We have requested your details from the DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle (through the Reasonable Cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding parking charge). The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows. Stopping in a No Stopping Area.

The driver picked up an elderly person with long-term debilitating conditions.

6. 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 the 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 including exemptions – such as any ‘genuine customer’ or ‘genuine resident’ exemptions or any site occupier’s ‘right of veto’ charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.


7. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

The PCN only states xxx xxxxxxx 2019 at xx:xx, none of this was evidence on the photograph. Only states one time and not a period of time.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

Park Watch’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at [One Stop Shopping Centre, Birmingham, B42 1AA – Red Route].” The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered [One Stop Shopping Centre, Birmingham, B42 1AA – Red Route] at [XX:XX] and departed at [no exit time]”. At no stage do Park Watch explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012. Park Watch NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Park Watch to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Park Watch are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require Park Watch to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must 24 refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

The PCN in question contains images of the vehicle and no clear image of the number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the images. The images do not clearly display the number plate. I require Park Watch to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

9. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Park Watch Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states: “We have issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) xxxxxx to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable to a parking charge at One Stop Shopping Centre, Birmingham, B42 1AA – Red Route that we are authorised to manage on the xxxxxxxx 2019 at xx:xx. The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions.”

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Park Watch own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry/exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. 25

I require Park Watch to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images (no stamps were on the photographs on the NtK) to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and stationary, it is vital that Park Watch produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

10. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Park Watch signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law. The Park Watch’ signs fail to state that is uses ANPR this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. On a sign it states “£100 Parking Charge” and below it in smaller text “Reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days” The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on Park Watch’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras. In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 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. and Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent': Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2) - (a) the commercial practice omits material information, 27 (b) the commercial practice hides material information, (c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or (d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.'' It is far from 'apparent' that a camera icon means a car's data is being harvested for commercial purposes of charging in a free car park. A camera icon suggests CCTV is in operation for security within the car park.

11. Red line markings – private land.

Red line markings to indicate no stopping areas on private land are meaningless, it is purely graffiti.

As said previously the driver stopped there to pick up an elderly person (no blue badge but with a walking aid) with a long-term debilitating condition.

Just to reiterate, the signs say free parking up to 4 hours, so the PCN is extortionate and criminal.

U_R_Kidding

Just to add, I did include a photo of the letter received from Park Watch.

Thank you all for you help so far.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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

U_R_Kidding

Will do, thank you, The Deep.

Coupon-mad

When I put in my code for POPLA the name for the parking firm was different from Park Watch.

You can see from their BPA membership that they trade as ParkWatch and this is not another company.

Remove the awful intro you copied; we hate this ungrammatical example and never want to see it again!

I the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xxx xxxxxxxx 2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Park Watch – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx xxxxxxxxxx 2019 and rejected via an email dated xx xxxxxxx 2019 with a hyperlink to view the rejection. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge

I feel that this POPLA template is too long and old as well, with half of it irrelevant.

And hidden in there you've mentioned helping a slow moving elderly passenger but not provided evidence about that (maybe a witness statement from them?).

And you have mentioned grace periods and 11 mins a lot but I can't see you've said anywhere how long it took before parking an how long it took to leave, in minutes. Don't make POPLA guess.