CP Plus NTK amount charged more than signage

nosferatu1001

Do they give the correct warning? 28 days starting the day after the notice is given ie delivered to you. 2 working days from posting

yaks20

Yes, they specifically reference 8(2)(f) in paragraph 4 below. This is the entire text, with the details cut off from the picture of reg number etc. But otherwise this seems to comply with POFA wording?

Castle

Have another read of para 8(2)(f) and see if you can spot where its says 29 days.

yaks20

Ah - POFA says: the end of the period 28 days beginning the day after the notice is given, wouldn't that be the same as 29 days from the date the notice is given?

nosferatu1001

It is, which is why I think it is ok
Hower
£140 certainly isnt. Complaint time.

Redx

Nobody is asking them or you to interpret the law or to provide alternative wording

The notice must comply with Pofa and specifically it must be correctly worded

Compare it to a compliant Parking Eye one , if it's not the same wording , it fails the pedantry test

yaks20

Right, so then my appeal should be on:
* POFA wording not used, especially in relation to 8(2)(f)
* POFA discount period not given, and especially as BPA code requires at least 40% discount to be offered (not sure if the NTK must include this given that the NTD might have included the discount already.)
* Conflicting signage at the payment terminals and other sites saying parking is free
* Communication from hospital to staff causing ambiguity as to red and yellow zones and permits, but the bay is not marked up for yellow or red zones.
* The charge of £140 is above the BPA code of conduct's £100 max, and any extra must be justified in advance, which they haven't as the NTK requests £140 straight away.
* The addition of £40 on top of what was shown on the sign as a charge of £100 makes this an abuse of process.

Are these points robust enough? I need to submit my appeal asap (last day would be 21 September).

nosferatu1001

All POFA does is requires you are told if there is a discount, not that there must be a discount. Was there a NtD? If not, then you do NOT ref para 8 you ref para 9. A requirement of a NtK under para 8 is that it must repeatr the info on the NtD. there is no way £140 was on the NtD, so that is another POFA fail. 

You also have ot talk about landowner authoruty because every appeal ever does. 
So get cracking. 

Coupon-mad

Yeah, no need to offer any discount when there has been a windscreen PCN first.
Stick with the £140 exceeding the amount on the PCN, therefore the NTK fails to 'repeat the information on the PCN' and quote the right part of para 8.  It also breaches the BPA CoP because it exceeds the £100 ceiling and this is not 'debt collection stage', it's primary NTK stage.

Then all the usual stuff from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread...

yaks20

Ok, again thanks for the help and guidance. I've drafted the following, which I will send as a PDF together with the evidence referenced. I think it's as robust a defence as possible:

Contradictory and insufficient signage

The landowner is an NHS hospital [xxxx Hospital], which at the time of the alleged contravention had put in place special measures regarding the parking restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures included:

a)      Erecting signage (including at payment terminals) to inform car park users that “Parking is currently Free of charge”

b)     Sending email communications notifying that:

o   “Yellow permit holders are permitted to park in the yellow permit holder areas only

o   Red permit holders are permitted to park in the red permit holder areas only

o   Non-permit holders are permitted to park in the public areas (with their name and contact number displayed)”

Please find attached evidence of (a) and (b).

The temporary signage informing car park users that parking is free (a) contradicts the fixed signage also at the landowner’s site which mentions parking charges and on which [CP Plus Ltd] are basing their claim of entering into contract with the driver.

The contradiction in signage at the landowner’s site causes a contradiction in the contract, which would effectively void the contract and be unenforceable as a result.

In addition, the communication (b) also further contradicts the signage, implying that parking restrictions apply such that:

·        Permit holders of a particular type/colour are permitted to park in areas of the particular type/colour

·        Non-permit holders are permitted to park in public areas

The signage is therefore incomplete as there are no clear indications as to which areas are public, and which areas are of a particular type/colour. The evidence provided by [CP Plus Ltd.] showing the car as parked does not show any signage or marking that indicate the bay is in an area that is either ‘yellow’ or ‘red’. Note that the signage shown in the evidence provided by [CP Plus Ltd.] does not indicate in any way whether the bay falls within the definition of a ‘red’ or ‘yellow’ permit holder’s area.

I would therefore require evidence that marking was sufficient to clearly identify the area that the car was parked in as being within a ‘red’ or a ‘yellow’ permit holder’s area.

 Abuse of process

According to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) paragraph 8(2)(c) requires the Notice to Keeper (NTK) “state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f)”.

The amount requested on the NTK is £140, and exceeds the amount shown at the signage that is being used as evidence by [CP Plus Ltd.] where the charge is stated as £100. As such there are two possibilities, either:

a)      The Notice to Driver (NTD) also requested £140; or

b)     The NTK failed to meet the requirements of POFA paragraph 8(2)(c) of repeating the information in the NTD.

If (a) is true, then the amount requested in the NTD (£140) and NTK would be in excess of the amount shown on the signage (£100) and is therefore unfair and an abuse of process.

If (b) is true, then the NTK would not comply with POFA 8(2)(c) and as a result the keeper would not be liable for any parking charges.

BPA Code of Conduct breached

In any case, the request for £140 would also be in breach of the BPA Code of Conduct clause 20.5, which states: “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.”

The requested amount is £140, and the operator has not justified the excess £40 added to the £100 ceiling. As a result, the operator has therefore breached the BPA Code of Conduct.

Landowner authority

As this operator [CP Plus Ltd.] 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 must, in compliance with clause 7.3 of the BPA Code of Conduct set out:

a)      the definition of the land on which [CP Plus Ltd.] 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