Bridgepam parking ticket

KeithP

koalabear15 said:

Hi guys,
A question about data breach. If company has accesed my details as a registered keeper and charge will not be applicable after POPLA appeal can I sue them for accesing my data without valid reason?

I don't understand that.

A parking company can get the keeper's details from the DVLA to either:
a) ask the keeper to let them know who was driving, or
b) seek to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper.

koalabear15

As for the signs saying that parking is prohibited if the makings aren't clear, that would make the signage forbidding and incapable of forming a contract. There is no consideration (no offer to park). 
Based on this if Id prove that my car was there and did not breach the contract. Do I have valid grounds to for legal actions as they would obtain my data without my consent?

koalabear15

Ok guys I have put something together any sugestions please do not hold back still no NTK so I have two sections in case Ill receive it. 

D_P_Dance

• You can sue anyone for virtually anything in a SCC.   However,  PPCs usually have a valid reason  to access the DVLA normally to obtain RK details.  , 

koalabear15

Thanks. I think I misunderstood one of the forum threads....
What dou you think guys on my appeal?

Coupon-mad

As it's a PCN from BridgePam, why does the appeal talk about National Car Parks, a different firm?

Remove this horrible, grammatically incorrect, intro that people keep copying and we all hate:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle was made aware of being issued Parking Charge notice but, did not receive a letter acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator ––……………….. was submitted and acknowledged on but subsequently rejected by a letter attachment to an email dated …………….. 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:

It is not good English to split infinitives by putting ''I'' then a comma, then some words, then the poor isolated verbs ('am' and 'was') miles along the sentences!

koalabear15

I was trying to use some of the appeals that were proven to be successful. I will change everything to match details of my case. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Do you think i should put more about signs prohibiting parking if outside marked bays?
I will add some pictures and add tekst about how difficult is to see signs from the car because they are so high. Even if you stand in front of it is unreadable. 

D_P_Dance

Ignore the advice on split infinitives, it is decades old. 

https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/split-infinitives/I

Fruitcake

koalabear15 said:

Ok guys I have put something together any sugestions please do not hold back still no NTK so I have two sections in case Ill receive it. 

I find it difficult to flit between a word document that took ages to load and this thread. It would be much easier to show it here as a post rather than an attachment. That way posters can highlight, strikethrough, delete, or add comments where required.

Anyway, in addition to the above comments, you need to check if for spelling, grammar, missing words, and whether each sentence actually makes sense.

Under the heading, 

No keeper liability - PoFA non-compliant NTK due to failure to adhere to strict wording and guidelines set out in PoFA – no NTK  issued

you have quoted the wrong part of the PoFA. You need to refer to Para 8 of Sch 4, not para 9. When you re-read the PoFA you will understand why.

Your index headings need to be numbered, and the corresponding appeal points need to be numbered to match.

You have a Grace Period appeal point but it does not appear in the index.

Images should ideally be embedded in the text where referred to rather than in an appendix. If the latter is to be used then you need to refer to each image at the point where you refer to it in the text.

koalabear15

As per request, have made some amendments but please dont slag me off. Its not completed yet. 

Appeal re POPLA Code: ……………………….

 

Vehicle Registration: ……………….

POPLA ref: …………….

I was made aware of being issued Parking Charge notice but, did not receive a letter acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator ––……………….. was submitted and acknowledged on but subsequently rejected by a letter attachment to an email dated  …………….. I contend that not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1.      No keeper liability - PoFA non-compliant NTK due to failure to adhere to strict wording and guidelines set out in PoFA –

2.      The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

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

4.      Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

5.      There are no easily visible entrance signs for the regular entry and 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

6.      No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

7.      No contract offered as parking is prohibited if the makings aren't clear, that would make the signage forbidding and incapable of forming a contract. (will add something later)

Unclear signage As for the signs saying that parking is prohibited if the makings aren't clear, that would make the signage forbidding and incapable of forming a contract. There is no consideration (no offer to park).

Please note: Additional larger copies of photographic evidence are provided at the back of

this document for reference, as well as embedded within the document where relevant.

Photographic evidence attached at the end of this document.

1.      No keeper liability - PoFA non-compliant NTK due to failure to adhere to strict wording and guidelines set out in PoFA – no NTK  issued

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. Bridge Security (CCTV Ltd) have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 8, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-Paragraph 8 (2)(f) states:

“The notice must-

(f) Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The NTK is not compliant with the specific wording and information which must be provided to the keeper as per PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8. Lack of NTK issued to me as keeper of a vehicle does not give warning to me as the keeper that Bridge Security (CCTV Ltd) have a right to recover costs from myself as keeper.

2.      The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially 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.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 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 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.      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.