Private Parking Solution - ticket despite having permit

Coupon-mad

Ah, OK and if there was no Notice to Keeper then you need to keep in the point about not knowing the driver.  There's a template POPLA point in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread, to add in for a case where no NTK was served.

stor

Thanks

Yes, i will fix the typo and add that to the appeal. Thank you!

if I attach a copy of the appeal rejection letter from PPS to POPLA as evidence of breach of GDPR , does it mean I mean breaching GDPR too by forwarding it? 

Coupon-mad

No, because you are not a data controller.

stor

Hi

PPS (London) Ltd has replied to the case stating:

“While we appreciate the appellant has provided a picture of a valid permit, we would have expected the driver to check that the parking permit was clearly displayed before leaving the vehicle on site in order to avoid the possibility of a PCN being issued. The fact remains they did not display it in accordance with the terms and conditions at the time of parking, and therefore, producing the permit after the breach has been identified, does not invalidate the PCN as it was issued correctly at the time. The appellant states that a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served, and therefore, no Keeper Liability can apply. According to the evidence, Notice to Keeper was served in full compliance with the POFA Act 2012, and the keeper is pursued for the unpaid parking charge. Whilst we acknowledge the appeal letter sent to the appellant contains a different name, this fact alone does not invalidate the parking charge as this would have no bearing on the contract formed, and no impact on the appellant’s ability to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park“

The evidence for Notice to keeper (NTK) they have uploaded is the reminder notice they sent (which I shared here). 

Also the date on the contract for PPS (London) to manage the area was signed (by managing agent) in mid-2019 and the contact says:
initial period: 12 months beginning on the appointed start date 

does this mean the contract is no longer valid between them and the landowner? 

Coupon-mad

Maybe.

These are all standard things for your POPLA appeal evidence comments, if that's the stage you are now at.  This is covered in the NEWBIES thread and you only get 2000 characters and 6 days to comment.

stor

Thank you for your help Coupon-mad.  Below (in italic) are my points to refute their response (in bold). I would really appreciate it if someone could check and give me some feedback. It's currently just over 2000 characters but i will cut down quotes from POFA 

I didn't use the point for the contract being invalid because the contract states "this twelve month rolling contract does not have a specific end date. It will role on until a termination of the contract is requested..." although i could say there is no evidence to suggest the contract has NOT been terminated, but i feel like i will be clutching at straws. 

While we appreciate the appellant has provided a picture of a valid permit, we would have expected the driver to check that the parking permit was clearly displayed before leaving the vehicle on site in order to avoid the possibility of a PCN being issued. The fact remains they did not display it in accordance with the terms and conditions at the time of parking, and therefore, producing the permit after the breach has been identified, does not invalidate the PCN as it was issued correctly at the time.

There are no clear guidelines or instruction on the displayed signs on exactly how to display the parking permit other than “on windscreen”. There is no mention of possession of a valid permit without it being displayed appropriately invalidates the permit. Instead, they’re relying on the driver to draw their interpretation of “on windscreen”. There is no clear evidence to suggest it was not displayed on the windscreen.

 

 The appellant states that a compliant Notice to Keeper was never served, and therefore, no Keeper Liability can apply. According to the evidence, Notice to Keeper was served in full compliance with the POFA Act 2012, and the keeper is pursued for the unpaid parking charge.

The operator has not issued a notice which clearly states “Notice To Keeper” but instead issued “Reminder notice” that’s not compliant with POFA act 2012. The driver has not been named, and as such has never received anything. The notice issued does not comply with POFA Act 2012 Section 8 (2) (e) and (f) or section 2012 Section 8 (2) (e) and (f) both which states:

Section 9 (2) (e) AND 8 (2) (e) of PoFA states: “The notice must: state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;”

And; Section 9 (2) (f) and (2) (f) of PoFA states: “(2) 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”

To establish a compliant transfer of liability under the terms of PoFA from the driver to the keeper, section 9 (2) paragraph (e) and (f) applies or section 8 (2) paragraph (e) and (f) applies. However, the “Notice reminder” fails to meet these criteria.

Whilst we acknowledge the appeal letter sent to the appellant contains a different name, this fact alone does not invalidate the parking charge as this would have no bearing on the contract formed, and no impact on the appellant’s ability to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.

Why would the appellant (keeper) be involved in ensuring terms and conditions were reviewed? Further evidence for the Notice being non-compliant with POFA Act 2012.  I believe they’re referring to the driver   

It is evident that the terms and conditions were adequately brought to the driver's attention. The signs are positioned at eye level and fall within the font size recommended by the BPA code of practice, so it is clear that the signs were readable and positioned in a way that could allow the driver to understand the terms and conditions.

This is another invalid statement by PPS as the closes sign is 2 meters above ground level. The average height in london is ~175.3cm for males and 164.4cm for women. So it’s not possible for the sign to be at eye level.

Thank you for all your help. 

Coupon-mad

It's 2000 characters, not 2000 words so you need bullet points only.

stor

Coupon-mad said:

It's 2000 characters, not 2000 words so you need bullet points only.

Yes will make them into bullet points. Thank you!

Is there anything I should add or remove in regards to the argument points? 

stor

POPLA decision: Appeal rejected 

Le_Kirk

stor said:

POPLA decision: Appeal rejected

Reason?  You are no worse off as POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist, just wait for the inevitable debt collector letters, letter before/of claim and possibly a N1 claim form.  Ignore debt collector twaddle but do not ignore LOC or N1 forms.