Parking ticket with no photographic evidence.

Danny30

@Umkomaas Thank you. I have just read the ticket and it says:

"if you're appeal is unsuccessful you will be provided with details how to access the Independent Appeals Service POPLA"

So it doesn't seem that they have a second appeal stage by the council.

Will send over shortly and see how it goes :-:smile:

Umkomaas

Danny30 said:

@Umkomaas Thank you. I have just read the ticket and it says:

"if you're appeal is unsuccessful you will be provided with details how to access the Independent Appeals Service POPLA"

So it doesn't seem that they have a second appeal stage by the council.

Will send over shortly and see how it goes :-:smile:

I've re-read the thread from the beginning and it looks (from the location you describe as to where the ticket was issued) that Spring have spread their wings a bit. They were usually concentrating on issuing tickets on council estates (hence council involvement in the second stage appeal), so your next step might well be POPLA. 

Incidentally, Spring disappeared from the private parking scene when they were no longer members of the BPA (for whatever reason) meaning no access to the DVLA database. It's your thread that has alerted me to their reappearance. From past experience they are a pretty benign outfit. 

Can you remind me - was a ticket (charge notice) attached to your windscreen by Spring, or were you first alerted via a letter in the post from them? If it was a letter, was it compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)?  Scan a redacted copy here if you're not sure. Both sides, please leave any dates on it showing. 

Fruitcake

Danny30 said:

Have to send out appeal today and just saw this letter template below on a website. Does it look like a good one to send? 

Please delete the link from your post as it is out of date and throws the driver under the bus. We don't want other posters seeing it and thinking it is safe to use. It is not.

Fruitcake

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

What was the reason for the PCN being issued?

If you go to the PPC's website as if you are going to pay, but obviously you won't be doing that, you may be able to see (some of) the photos they have taken.

The PoPLA appeal you quoted earlier is for a different PPC that used ANPR, so some of it won't be relevant. If the location is different, then the same applies.

There is nothing stopping you from cherry picking the parts that are relevant though, and adding them to points from other successful appeals.

However, Plan A, a landowner cancellation is always best.

Danny30

Umkomaas said:

Danny30 said:

@Umkomaas Thank you. I have just read the ticket and it says:

"if you're appeal is unsuccessful you will be provided with details how to access the Independent Appeals Service POPLA"

So it doesn't seem that they have a second appeal stage by the council.

Will send over shortly and see how it goes :-:smile:

I've re-read the thread from the beginning and it looks (from the location you describe as to where the ticket was issued) that Spring have spread their wings a bit. They were usually concentrating on issuing tickets on council estates (hence council involvement in the second stage appeal), so your next step might well be POPLA. 

Incidentally, Spring disappeared from the private parking scene when they were no longer members of the BPA (for whatever reason) meaning no access to the DVLA database. It's your thread that has alerted me to their reappearance. From past experience they are a pretty benign outfit. 

Can you remind me - was a ticket (charge notice) attached to your windscreen by Spring, or were you first alerted via a letter in the post from them? If it was a letter, was it compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)?  Scan a redacted copy here if you're not sure. Both sides, please leave any dates on it showing. 

The ticket was a windscreen ticket that was for parking the car in a private car park without a valid pay and display ticket. This is all that was received. No images mentioned.

See attached image

Umkomaas

OK - if it's just a windscreen ticket, hold tight. No appealing anything at this stage. 

What is the date of the parking event shown on the ticket please?

Danny30

Umkomaas said:

OK - if it's just a windscreen ticket, hold tight. No appealing anything at this stage. 

What is the date of the parking event shown on the ticket please?

About 22 days ago 

Umkomaas

Danny30 said:

Umkomaas said:

OK - if it's just a windscreen ticket, hold tight. No appealing anything at this stage. 

What is the date of the parking event shown on the ticket please?

About 22 days ago 

Is that a date? 🤷‍♂️

You need to read the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, first post, and check out why you should appeal the charge around day 25/26 after the date of the parking ticket. You'll need to work the date out yourself. 

Danny30

Hi all, Well, they have replied and rejected the first appeal.

I have been searching the forum and am struggling to find any recent POPLA template letters to use. I have compiled the one below but am not sure if it is out of date as some is from 2016? Can anyone kindly link me to a relevant template or what exactly to search for?

I apologise as is a bit long.

POPLA APPEAL –  INITIAL PARKING CHARGE  NUMBER:

I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration:       and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge number:      using POPLA appeal code:          . My appeal was refused by Initial Parking on the grounds stated in their appeal reply letter dated ...............

2021 (see Image 4).

I am appealing this penalty on the grounds stated below and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1.   No Keeper Liability

2.   No contract with the Landowner

3.   No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

4.   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

 

 

1. No Keeper Liability.

A compliant Notice to Keeper has not been served. I assert that Initial Parking have failed to

comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. Spring Parking cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged contravention from the driver at the time to me (the registered keeper). 

2. No Landowner Authority

There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator (Spring Parking) 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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 aforementioned BPA Code of Practice) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the aforementioned BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

 “7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a.    the definition of the land on which you 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”

Additionally any such document produced by Spring Parking must be compliant with the legal requirements of Companies House.

In these circumstances I request that my appeal is upheld and that the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled,

Yours faithfully

3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Spring Parking must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Spring Parking to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Spring Parking and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Spring Parking.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

Section 7.3 states: “The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you 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.''

I do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a landowner gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay Spring Parking. Spring Parking have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court.

 

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.

4. 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 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.''

Danny30

This is the signage when entering car park


Close up of signage displayed in car park



And visibility of signs