2 parking areas on one hospital site. Got wrong ticket

Redx

you have say 32 days from the date of the popla code being issued , so submit the popla appeal around day 26 to day 32 following the popla code being issued , or on day 57 following the incident , whichever comes soonest


just do not miss your popla appeal deadline , but preferably after day 56 following the incident

MrTomWins

Okay, thanks. Was just checking if I could claim no keeper liability, as they had closed the case and given a POPLA code, before sending out the NTK. As I could appeal now, with no NTK, and persumably, no keeper liability, since I had not received anything until after they had closed the case.Only 2 days left until the NTK is late anyway.

Redx

so wait 3 or 4 days at least , maybe submit on friday 24th as long as the popla code remains valid , dont give them the time to do it , plus ensure it doesnt arrive in the meantime as that would alter your popla appeal


I would do it after the post arrives on friday, especially if no NTK arrives this week

MrTomWins

Righto, makes sense. Thanks.

MrTomWins

Time to send my appeal off to Popla. No NTK has arrived within the time frame allowed
Before I construct my appeal, I just wanted to check, do I have to give my description of what happened, as I did to the parking company, or do Popla already have a copy of what I gave them?

I have managed to copy/paste a few pieces from other appeals that have succeeded, and fit, but have some parts of my own that I would like to get checked over in a bit.

MrTomWins

I have the following points. I have ommited the content of copy pasted pieces to save reading:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.(copy/pasted)

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge (copy/pasted)

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (copy/pasted)

4. The parking charge notice states that failure to provide payment within 28 days will result in the charge increasing.

As required by the British Parking Association code of practice 2012, the parking ticket must adhere to the following condition:

BPA COP 2012
Appendix B
Section B5.1, note "p"
Any excess charges the driver may have to pay if no
payment or challenge is received within the time
allowed, and how those charges will be worked out.

None of the ticket issued, Signage on site, or the website of Premier Park LTD. state the value of the charges, or how they would be worked out. This is in breach of the above code of practice, as it is unclear what the sum of these charges would be.

5. Signage is unclear, as is the layout of the site.

The Royal Devon and Exeter hospital site is quite large, and contains several car parks. These are all contained within one walled/fenced site. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all car parks should be controlled by the same parking company.
Each of the signs states that the car park is NHS owned. There is no physical barrier between the two relevent car parking areas, other than a patch of grass. Without driving around the whole site, it is unclear that the parking areas are not directly connected. Small roads run behind, and towards other areas. One road runs across the top of both areas.
A short path runs from the area in which the vehicle was parked, directly to the pay point used by the driver on the other area. There is also another path that joins the two parking areas, and also the main building.
The signage of the pay points do not clearly differentiate between parking operators, or areas of the site. The pay point used does not clearly state who the car park operator is, and where their ticket is valid. The driver states that they saw the BPA Approved label, and considered it to be the mark of the parking operator. Rather than the very small text contained within the other terms and conditions.

The ticket itself states neither which operator it is valid for, nor for which car parking area(s).

Umkomaas

Where are the detailed appeal points on 1-4?

KeithP

I cannot find where your point 4 is referring to.
To start with, referencing BPA COP 2012 could be misleading - leave out the 2012.

Appendix B of the relevant version (and others) of the BPA's CoP appears to be a description of the signs. I cannot find Section B5.1, or note "p" anywhere. The PoPLA appeal assessor may have similar difficulty.

MrTomWins

Good catch KeithP. I've just gone back through and can't find it again Only in relation to Ireland and Scotland. !!!!!!.I will remove that bit, unless I can find it again.

Unkomaas, here is the other bits that I have copied and pasted from other posts:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.



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 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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant 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 because the fact remains I am only the keeper and 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous 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 driver 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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 for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''



3. 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 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 CoP) 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 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

MrTomWins

Okay, appeal is editied and in, 9 page PDF. I have also requested a SAR from Premier Park as well. Moslty just to make them do some work
Hopefully this will be it done with now.