Total Car Parks & Debt recovery plus

P25522

Hi all,

Need some help here as I'm a bit lost. I essentially missed the first appeal stage as I got an error message when I tried (appealt deadline 19/11/19) so sent a letter (20/11/19) - which TCP state they did not receive so will not issue a code for POPLA. I have sent a letter, via email asking for an alternative resolution, as advised on one of the links from this forum. As a response, they have also now refused to communicate with me and state the issue is with debt recovery plus and therefore out of their hands. They have told me to communicate only with DRP - I have not contacted them at all.
I have had 4 letters from DRP, the latest offering me a reduced amount if I pay by 13th Jan, but it is not the LBCC - there are no papers nor a 30 day deadline. I have read through the newbies sticky and don't really know where to go from here!
Help would be greatly appreciated!

Redx

2 things to do

1) always complain to the landowner , try for a cancellation

2) you missed the section about complaining to the BPA , online , adding a brief summary and copies of all paperwork

Then read the section on ignoring DRP in post #4

Coupon-mad

Certainly send a complaint email to the BPA's Gemma Dorans. She is fair:

gemma.d@britishparking.co.uk

P25522

How do I find out who the landowner is? TCP deny any information about contracts with a landowner. I will go back and read the posts again! There's so much information i got a bit lost with it!

Thanks for the help!

Le_Kirk

If it is just a car park and not attached to a retail outlet/bank/pub/restaurant/hotel etc. than just ask the local council who pays the non-domestic business rates or, for payment of about £3, the land registry.

P25522

Ok, so i have compiled a letter of complaint to the BPA - any advice or changes would be greatly appreciated.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in regard to the above parking ticket charge received from Total Car Parks on the 12th October 2019. The vehicle was recorded on ANPR cameras and reported to have overstayed. There was no notice on the vehicle at the time and thus the first correspondence received was the latter dated 18th October 2019, which was not delivered until the 29th October 2019. Appeal was attempted prior to the 28 day deadline (19th November 2019), on two occasions but an error message was received on both occasions, this resulted in me writing a letter as the registered keeper dated the 20th November 2019. I have since attempted to speak with Total Car Parks who state that this letter was never received. And therefore will not consider my appeal, nor provide a POPLA code in order for me to complete a second stage appeal.

Regarding the initial letter, I believe it in breach of the BPA code of conduct. I have detailed my concerns below:

Code 13 – Grace periods: There has been no mention of the grace periods and whether this would account for the alleged overstay of the vehicle. As I am sure you are aware, the grace periods total 20 minutes which is a significant amount of time whereby the vehicle may have left the land within the times paid for, when considering the grace period.

Code 18 – Signs: the terms and conditions for parking were not clear to the driver on the entrance way to the carpark.

Code 19 – The charges applied are not reasonable and proportionate to any alleged overstay but instead apply the maximum amount as set out by the code. The maximum time that could be charged for, for the vehicle entering and the “time issued” is a £5.50 tariff. A ticket was paid for and any alleged overstay by the driver was unintentional, thus, the actual cost for time of the alleged overstay is less than £5.50. This charge has then been inflated to £100 as parking ticket charge which is unreasonable considering the tariff of less than £5.50. Should any alleged overstay have been identified at the time, the driver could not have sought to have resolved the issue as the land is unmanned and monitored by ANPR.

Code 20 – No date or time stamp is included on the photograph, and photographs provided do not confirm the incident claimed to be unauthorised. The Photographs only show the vehicle entering and leaving the land at unspecified times by photograph. There is no reference to the amount of time alleged to have overstayed, nor any proof information showing that the tariff for these unknown times wasn’t paid for.

There was no “notice to driver” given on the day, thus “notice to keeper” code applies. The initial latter from Total Car Park’s does not state it is a notice to keeper but heavily emphasises that the keeper is to pay only stating at the end that it is the driver that is liable.

The first letter, assumed to be the “Notice to keeper” does not meet paragraph 9 of schedule 4 on the following points:
Paragraph 9 (2)
B - There is also no mention of the amount owed for the parking period, the parking period paid for nor any details of the overstay, only the ticket charge.

C - The letter’s received only detail the parking ticket amount, it does not specify the amount of monies owed by the overstay, nor the time overstayed. It also does not detail any monies paid. It only specifies time entering and leaving the land. As mentioned previously, the emphasis is to seek repayment from the keeper, not the driver.

Paragraph 9 (2) D -
The first letter from Total car parks states that the name of the driver can be provided but not that this information is not known.

Paragraph 9, (3)
(i) The letter does not mention the 28 day period in relation to the ability to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge.
The amount of unpaid parking charges is not specified nor that the name and service address for the driver is not known. The initial discounted rate was not available as the letter was not received until after the initial 7 day period.

Paragraph 9 (6)
The letter was not received until the 29/10/2019 – well past the 7 day discounted rate and past the 14 day period beginning with the day that the specified period of parking ended.

Paragraph 12, (3) - The content nor form of notices on the land where the vehicle was captured by ANPR were not detailed in any letter, only a reference to the notices displayed. There is no evidence to show that there was any notice at all at the time, nor where the notices were displayed

Code 22 – There were 3 attempts made to appeal, two online before the end of the appeal date and one the day after the appeal date due to miscalculation of the end date. The initial two appeals, in the 20 days left for appeal were unsuccessful due to an error on the website that would not allow the appeal to be accessed – the unique reference number was not recognised. On the understanding that the initial stage had been missed after e-mailing Total Car Parks, an appeal opportunity was refused and a POPLA code denied. Thus, the keeper has not had reasonable chance to appeal. There is a minimum requirement of 28 days but the code does not state that an appeal cannot be considered after this time. As Total Car Parks do not have the details of the driver, the Keeper is only allowed to appeal on the grounds that the vehicle is stolen, on hire or lease as none of these apply, there is no provision for the keeper of the vehicle to apply within 28 days, according to the code of practice.
There has been no identification of the Independent appeals service, not the Ombudsman Services in any correspondence with Total Car Parks.

Code 23 – Only two letters have been received from Total Car Parks before referring the matter to a debt recovery firm. A “Notice in breach of parking conditions” sent 6 days after the alleged unauthorised event followed 14 days later by a “Final Warning”. There has been no notice to keeper received and therefore no 28 day minimum before a notification letter was sent. Alternatively, if the initial letter is claimed by the operator to be the notice to keeper, the 28 day minimum still has not been met with the second letter being the “Final Warning”.
The debt recovery procedure was started on 19th November 2019, one day after the end of appeal. Should the timelines have been adhered to, assuming the first letter was the “notice to keeper” the earliest this letter could be received is 16th December 2019. The timelines that have been followed are the ones detailed to apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Under the Scotland and Northern Ireland codes of conduct, along with those detailed above, the following codes have not been met:
Code 29 - The Unique reference number is not clear – it is detailed as a notice number. There is no identifier as to who has issued the ticket. There are no details of the terms and conditions by which the driver or registered keeper is bound.

P25522

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If it is just a car park and not attached to a retail outlet/bank/pub/restaurant/hotel etc. than just ask the local council who pays the non-domestic business rates or, for payment of about £3, the land registry.

I have searched for the car park on the land registry - the address given by the company refers to the building next door and is registered under a different name. The car park is not attached to any outlet/bank/restaurant etc and thus independent. Since it was the weekend, I have emailed to ask the local council but am awaiting a reply.

Coupon-mad

[STRIKE] the latter[/STRIKE] a letter dated 18th October 2019, which was not delivered until the 29th October 2019. Appeal was attempted prior to the 28 day deadline [STRIKE](19th November 2019),[/STRIKE]

As above, typo there, and remove 19th Nov as that is NOT within 28 days of the date of the NTK (I know it arrived late but that's not the point).

Code 13 – Grace periods: There has been no mention of the grace periods and whether this would account for the alleged overstay of the vehicle. As I am sure you are aware, the grace periods total 20 minutes which is a significant amount of time whereby the vehicle may have left the land within the times paid for, when considering the grace period.

Don't say the above, it is not true to say the grace periods allowed 20 minutes, not as such, and the BPA will disagree with you.

So remove it.

In fact, remove ALL of this, as none of this is relevant to the BPA and these are not clear CoP breaches, this is not what your complaint is about (your complaint should ONLY be about not receiving a POPLA code, so save the appeal stuff!):

Regarding the initial letter, I believe it in breach of the BPA code of conduct. I have detailed my concerns below:

Code 13 – Grace periods: There has been no mention of the grace periods and whether this would account for the alleged overstay of the vehicle. As I am sure you are aware, the grace periods total 20 minutes which is a significant amount of time whereby the vehicle may have left the land within the times paid for, when considering the grace period.

Code 18 – Signs: the terms and conditions for parking were not clear to the driver on the entrance way to the carpark.

Code 19 – The charges applied are not reasonable and proportionate to any alleged overstay but instead apply the maximum amount as set out by the code. The maximum time that could be charged for, for the vehicle entering and the “time issued” is a £5.50 tariff. A ticket was paid for and any alleged overstay by the driver was unintentional, thus, the actual cost for time of the alleged overstay is less than £5.50. This charge has then been inflated to £100 as parking ticket charge which is unreasonable considering the tariff of less than £5.50. Should any alleged overstay have been identified at the time, the driver could not have sought to have resolved the issue as the land is unmanned and monitored by ANPR.

Code 20 – No date or time stamp is included on the photograph, and photographs provided do not confirm the incident claimed to be unauthorised. The Photographs only show the vehicle entering and leaving the land at unspecified times by photograph. There is no reference to the amount of time alleged to have overstayed, nor any proof information showing that the tariff for these unknown times wasn’t paid for.

There was no “notice to driver” given on the day, thus “notice to keeper” code applies. The initial latter from Total Car Park’s does not state it is a notice to keeper but heavily emphasises that the keeper is to pay only stating at the end that it is the driver that is liable.

The first letter, assumed to be the “Notice to keeper” does not meet paragraph 9 of schedule 4 on the following points:
Paragraph 9 (2)
B - There is also no mention of the amount owed for the parking period, the parking period paid for nor any details of the overstay, only the ticket charge.

C - The letter’s received only detail the parking ticket amount, it does not specify the amount of monies owed by the overstay, nor the time overstayed. It also does not detail any monies paid. It only specifies time entering and leaving the land. As mentioned previously, the emphasis is to seek repayment from the keeper, not the driver.

Paragraph 9 (2) D -
The first letter from Total car parks states that the name of the driver can be provided but not that this information is not known.

Paragraph 9, (3)
(i) The letter does not mention the 28 day period in relation to the ability to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge.
The amount of unpaid parking charges is not specified nor that the name and service address for the driver is not known. The initial discounted rate was not available as the letter was not received until after the initial 7 day period.

Paragraph 9 (6)
The letter was not received until the 29/10/2019 – well past the 7 day discounted rate and past the 14 day period beginning with the day that the specified period of parking ended.

Paragraph 12, (3) - The content nor form of notices on the land where the vehicle was captured by ANPR were not detailed in any letter, only a reference to the notices displayed. There is no evidence to show that there was any notice at all at the time, nor where the notices were displayed

Code 22 – There were 3 attempts made to appeal, two online before the end of the appeal date and one the day after the appeal date due to miscalculation of the end date. The initial two appeals, in the 20 days left for appeal were unsuccessful due to an error on the website that would not allow the appeal to be accessed – the unique reference number was not recognised. On the understanding that the initial stage had been missed after e-mailing Total Car Parks, an appeal opportunity was refused and a POPLA code denied. Thus, the keeper has not had reasonable chance to appeal. There is a minimum requirement of 28 days but the code does not state that an appeal cannot be considered after this time. As Total Car Parks do not have the details of the driver, the Keeper is only allowed to appeal on the grounds that the vehicle is stolen, on hire or lease as none of these apply, there is no provision for the keeper of the vehicle to apply within 28 days, according to the code of practice.
There has been no identification of the Independent appeals service, not the Ombudsman Services in any correspondence with Total Car Parks.

Code 23 – Only two letters have been received from Total Car Parks before referring the matter to a debt recovery firm. A “Notice in breach of parking conditions” sent 6 days after the alleged unauthorised event followed 14 days later by a “Final Warning”. There has been no notice to keeper received and therefore no 28 day minimum before a notification letter was sent. Alternatively, if the initial letter is claimed by the operator to be the notice to keeper, the 28 day minimum still has not been met with the second letter being the “Final Warning”.
The debt recovery procedure was started on 19th November 2019, one day after the end of appeal. Should the timelines have been adhered to, assuming the first letter was the “notice to keeper” the earliest this letter could be received is 16th December 2019. The timelines that have been followed are the ones detailed to apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Under the Scotland and Northern Ireland codes of conduct, along with those detailed above, the following codes have not been met:
Code 29 - The Unique reference number is not clear – it is detailed as a notice number. There is no identifier as to who has issued the ticket. There are no details of the terms and conditions by which the driver or registered keeper is bound.

P25522

Coupon-mad wrote: »

In fact, remove ALL of this, as none of this is relevant to the BPA and these are not clear CoP breaches, this is not what your complaint is about (your complaint should ONLY be about not receiving a POPLA code, so save the appeal stuff!):

Ah, thanks! I went a bit overboard there i guess but gives me a good basis for appeal stuff!

In my correspondence with the PPC they now state that the matter is with DRP, "out of their hands" and will no longer correspond with me, does this mean they are unlikely to issue LBC as it has to come from them, not DRP? have I understood that information correctly?

nosferatu1001

No, you have not understood that info
Eventualkly DRP will pass it back, saying you didnt pay waaaah waaaah and THEn the PPC might try court.

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]