Stanmer Park Brighton, Private parking fine...

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

I like this chap Bluefeather he/she takes no prisoners.   However, a word of advice from one who knows, read my signature.

Scrapit was another so disposed. He does however seem to have been made aware as to what 'too far' is - he appears to have been BANNED! 😄

D_P_Dance

Not to mention Trump's moggie, now a doggie.  

nosferatu1001

Blue seems to have decided that the answer to some reasonable questions was to attack and belittle, and then got some details wrong. 
I find such gesturing with genitalia tiresome. 

Seagull-Stripes

Okay... So... Update regarding this situation and I'm not a happy bunny to say the least!!!!

I sent Arval two emails stating that this fine shouldn't be paid and that they are to pass on the details of the keeper to OPS.

I also sent the email as previously mentioned on your advice to Gemma Dorrans who then replied stating that they will investigate the matter.

I received the following email from Gemma:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

 BPA – 016931

 I have investigated your complaint with the Operator and can advise as follows.

 The Operator wrote to you to clarify who you were.  Within your appeal, you said you were the hirer and the keeper.  You cannot be both and One Parking asked you to provide evidence of this.

 One Parking did not receive a reply to their letter and therefore a Notice to Keeper was sent to the hire company.  It appears the hire company have decided to pay the charge and the case has been closed.

 When One Parking asked for evidence, it would have been of assistance if you provided a copy of your hire agreement so One Parking could transfer liability to you.

 As there has not been a breach of our Code of Practice, I have closed the case."

This is a very simplified version of what happened. In OPS's reply to the appeal, it wasn't clear that I had the opportunity to provide them with further evidence. I just assumed that they would get my details from Arval and write to me directly.

I called Arval who confirmed they paid it and will be passing the costs over to me. I stated that I emailed them twice, once on the 27th Jan and again on the 3rd Feb stating that they should not pay the fine.

They told me I had sent it to the wrong email address and in any case, this "parking authority" do not allow the passing over of liability. In other words OPS do not allow leasing companies to provide details of the keeper for the keeper to then appeal. They hold the owner (the leasing firm) liable.

Arval said they just pay these things as they get many hundreds a day they cannot deal with each individual case. It's too time consuming apparently.

The whole thing just sounds like a load of *******

So my next payment to Arval comes out on 15th March. They said they can appeal on our behalf if I send them an appeal letter which I assume will be passed on to OPS but the fine has been paid. They've got the dough and they probably want to hang on to it so I doubt there will be much success.

If this now over complicates things, I might just have to swallow this one unless you guys throw me a line worth chasing which doesn't involve jumping through too many hoops.

There is one extra thing that might be worth a mention.

I visited Stanmer Park that day with my brother who parked next to me and also got a fine. We both appealed to OPS using exactly the same wording and his appeal was granted. They confirmed they would overturn the fine. His is a lease vehicle also but with VW leasing.

This made me even more cross!!!

I look forward to hearing your replies.

Cheers in advance.

D_P_Dance

If I were you I would take this to Trading Standards

This may also be helpful

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/fact-sheet-library/setting-aside-a-ccj-ew/

IIMU that the is a memorandum of understanding between the BPA and a trade body, perhaps someone can link to it.  

Fruitcake

What a load of cobblers. The lease company can pass liability to the hirer/lessee. They have been able to do this for over eight years and should know by now how to do it. 
Had they done this they would not have been liable. Because they have paid it, it is their problem not yours. You should put the charge into dispute with them.
Unless byelaws are in play, the vehicle owner is not liable, only the registered keeper, day to day keeper, hirer/lessee, or driver.
If the hire company is a member of the BVRLA, they are fully aware they should pass the hirer's details on and must not pay the charge.

Gemma is talking cobblers and should know better. The hirer by definition is the day to day keeper, so it is perfectly possible for a hirer to be the keeper, therefore there is no reason why the hirer and/or the day to day keeper cannot appeal.

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

IIMU that the is a memorandum of understanding between the BPA and a trade body, perhaps someone can link to it.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9b0iavad3aqeh28/BPA%20BVRLA%20MoU.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Your grievance is now with Arval.

They told me I had sent it to the wrong email address and in any case, this "parking authority" do not allow the passing over of liability. In other words OPS do not allow leasing companies to provide details of the keeper for the keeper to then appeal. They hold the owner (the leasing firm) liable.

Arval said they just pay these things as they get many hundreds a day they cannot deal with each individual case. It's too time consuming apparently.

The whole thing just sounds like a load of *******

Yes.  OPS certainly do transfer liability, it's on the back of the NTK Arval were sent.  They have to offer this because the BPA (OPS' Trade Body) has a longstanding Memorandum of Understanding since 2013, with Arval's Trade Body, the BVRLA.

 AND there was no ability to hold Arval liable and the NTK was non-POFA in wording, because this is not 'relevant land' due to being Council owned.

The fact Arval can't tell the difference between a POFA and non-POFA NTK is not your problem, and the fact they chose to pay an invoice that was not theirs to pay (due to it being incapable of holding them liable in law) is again, not your problem.  You took all reasonable steps to tell Arval this and to ask that they simply send you, the hirer, the letter and to use the Transfer of Liability section on the back of their NTK, if they got one.  Had they done this, then OPS would have sent a NTH to you and you would have appealed and won, because everyone wins at POPLA against OPS at Stanmer Park, for several reasons, if they research it.  

So, Arval need to swallow this and learn lessons from it.  The fact that whoever paid it is unaware of the BVRLA's Memorandum of Understanding with the BPA is not your problem, it's a training issue for Arval, along with understanding when a private NTK is 'POFA' or non-POFA'.

Umkomaas

For a large scale vehicle hire operation, they seem to have such little understanding of the law that impacts so significantly on their business. 

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

For a large scale vehicle hire operation, they seem to have such little understanding of the law that impacts so significantly on their business. 

Arval said they just pay these things as they get many hundreds a day they cannot deal with each individual case. It's too time consuming apparently.

......... and just who are all these hirers that do not know how to park properly defensively?