Euro Car Parks PCN NTK recieved

Kshah786

Hi all, as the title states, A PCN was sent out to post via an NTK. the driver had a parked in a permits only car park at around 6pm. it was very dark and the signs were not really clear. car was parked their for 3 hours.
The issue now is that the driver had borrowed his fathers car who is the registered keeper. The Registered keeper does not want any tickets in their name and wants the driver for that day to pay the ticket off. the registered keeper is not aware of the legalities of these PPCs. Can the registered keeper give the name of the driver who was driving at the time of the contravention, this way the ticket will be on the drivers name and then the driver of the contravention can ignore the court letters if it gets that far because the registered keeper isn't prepared to take this further.
The RK has received the Popla code.
Shall the driver use the newbies thread and copy the popla appeals format. what paragraphs to copy for the "permit holders only" parking appeal.
thanks
The driver has appealed on behalf of the registered keeper and the appeal has been refused.
here is the email received:



Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:




 The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay on site.


 Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.


 The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. The signage quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park then a Parking Charge Notice will be issued.


 On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice.


 The signage onsite clearly states ‘[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Authorised Vehicles Only’[/FONT][/FONT], your vehicle was not authorised to park in Lee Longlands - Birmingham – your full and correct vehicle registration was not registered via the console located on the premises, therefore the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and remains payable.

The_Slithy_Tove

Kshah786 wrote: »

The Registered keeper does not want any tickets in their name and wants the driver for that day to pay the ticket off. the registered keeper is not aware of the legalities of these PPCs. Can the registered keeper give the name of the driver who was driving at the time of the contravention, this way the ticket will be on the drivers name

Yes.

Kshah786 wrote: »

and then the driver of the contravention can ignore the court letters if it gets that far because the registered keeper isn't prepared to take this further.

Absolutely not. Once the driver's details are given, that's who they'll go after. The keeper is out of the loop at that point, and a key angle of defence is gone (no POFA compliance - no keeper liability; there is ALWAYS driver liability). Any court paper will be in the driver's name, and that's who'll end up with a default judgement if they ignore it.

One possible angle would be for the father to name the son to the PPC, but not as the "driver", but as the "keeper" of the vehicle at the relevant time. "Keeper" is who happens to be "keeping" the vehicle at any moment, and that is not the same as the "registered keeper" and isn't necessarily the driver. The "keeper" can then appeal as the keeper, not naming the driver, which will take the father out of the loop.

Kshah786

so for now a template of an appeal to popla will be posted in here for everyone to read.

Le_Kirk

You as driver, cannot appeal to POPLA ........... yet. The KEEPER can appeal to POPLA using the POPLA code received but you said the RK does not want to get involved. What is it to be?

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so, once your father has named you to the scammer, consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the them extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

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

KeithP

The driver has appealed on behalf of the registered keeper...

That was not a good idea.

Coupon-mad

Can the registered keeper give the name of the driver who was driving at the time of the contravention, this way the ticket will be on the drivers name and then the driver of the contravention can ignore the court letters if it gets that far because the registered keeper isn't prepared to take this further.

Yes they can name the driver.

But for the driver to ignore court papers would be madness.

Kshah786

Its not how you think it is. Also did you get a chance to briefly check my popla appeal. Thanks

Fruitcake

You have not posted a PoPLA appeal on this thread for us to look at.

Kshah786

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle ******* and am appealing a parking charge from Eurocarparks on the following points:

1
. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
2 . No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

4. No genuine Pre-estimate of loss
5. ANPR: Accuracy & Compliance
I call into question the ANPR system accuracy and compliance, since this car park has no parking staff on site. So I require the Operator to present records which prove the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the data. BPA CoP 21.2 and 21.3 make these documented checks a requirement.


1. 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.''


2. 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).

Fruitcake

That's only two of four points you have in your headings.

Point 4 is a no-no and went out with the Beavis case in 2015.

PoPLA will reject point 5 unless you have proof ANPR has erred. You would need, say a video of a car driving in and then someone buying a ticket at a P & D machine to show the entry time on the scameras differs from the time on the purchased ticket as proof.
We know they are not fit for purpose, as does the UK Government, which is why councils are prohibited from using them.
Parking scammers are unregulated so can use any old piece of junk they wish.

The keeper, whether day to day keeper or registered keeper, should use all the template points available to them in post 3 of the NEWBIES.

If the NTK was non-PoFA compliant then that should be point 1.

Get pics of the site and signage to include in the appeal.