PCN - Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

auteur

Registered Keeper received a Parking Charge Notice from Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd:





RK appealed with below:

As the registered keeper of the vehicle, there is no admission given as to the driver’s identity and no assumptions can be drawn.

The vehicle was not at W5 5EJ as stated on the Parking Charge Notice. W5 5EJ is a non-existent postcode that has not been in use since 2005. The vehicle was also not at British Telecom (referenced in the letter as BT) which regardless has the postcode W5 5EN. Any alleged offence could not have happened as outlined because of this.

The Parking Charge Notice issued is also not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4 of the Act refers to ‘the end of the period of 28 days’ whereas the PCN incorrectly refers to a period of 29 days. Further, in contradiction to Schedule 4, the PCN says ‘subject to the requirements of the Act’, whereas the Act states ‘if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met’. There is therefore no liability with the registered keeper.

Additionally, the PCN is in breach of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice. The PCN states that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd operates ‘in accordance with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice’. However, the vehicle was in place for less than 5 minutes and the Code [13.1] states that operators ‘must provide … a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.’ This is reinforced by the fact that your earliest photograph is timestamped 08:51:18 and your latest is 08:54:51. This invalidates the PCN.

Furthermore, the signage shown is prohibitive and of a forbidding nature. The signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. This means that there was never a contractual relationship, despite the PCN referring to ‘terms and conditions of parking’. Please refer to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]. There can be no perversion of a non-existent contract and thus the PCN is invalid.

I look forward to confirmation of the Parking Charge Notice being cancelled.

PPS denied appeal with below response:

Wondering if RK has solid grounds to escalate this to POPLA? Any and all advice appreciated. Thank you!

Umkomaas

Almost always there is a case for appealing to POPLA. Signage is a strong appeal point to make. The fact that this is a 'No Parking At Any Time' case, there cannot be a contract formed because there is no offer being made. It is a 'forbidding' sign and the PPC is attempt to impose a penalty - something a private organisation cannot do. But, it will be a hard 'slog' with POPLA - you might get an assessor who will put their head above the parapet to agree and uphold the appeal, but they are very reluctant to find against such cases - inexcusable, but that's where we are!

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post, provides many ready-written appeal points to use, subject to minor adjustment to fit with your parking event.  The POPLA Decisions Announcement is also a source of information which might help - but skim read the later pages to see if there are any similar cases you can draw on. 

Can you tell us the date of the parking event and the Date of Issue shown on the Notice to Keeper please so we can do a quick PoFA check. 

auteur

Umkomaas said:

Almost always there is a case for appealing to POPLA. Signage is a strong appeal point to make. The fact that this is a 'No Parking At Any Time' case, there cannot be a contract formed because there is no offer being made. It is a 'forbidding' sign and the PPC is attempt to impose a penalty - something a private organisation cannot do. But, it will be a hard 'slog' with POPLA - you might get an assessor who will put their head above the parapet to agree and uphold the appeal, but they are very reluctant to find against such cases - inexcusable, but that's where we are!

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post, provides many ready-written appeal points to use, subject to minor adjustment to fit with your parking event.  The POPLA Decisions Announcement is also a source of information which might help - but skim read the later pages to see if there are any similar cases you can draw on. 

Can you tell us the date of the parking event and the Date of Issue shown on the Notice to Keeper please so we can do a quick PoFA check. 

Thanks very much. Definitely inclined to encourage pushing ahead with the appeal, just on the basis that technically it 'should' be overturned. Even if it doesn't end up actually being so... I will look at the post you mentioned.

Date of event: 14/10/22

Issue Date: 18/10/22

1505grandad

In their rejection they quote 13.4 as "This includes parking in prohibited areas."

However the actual CoP para states:-

"...or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc"

As it is an anpr capture how do they know that you parked in the very specifically mentioned instances.  

"13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc."

So leaving the car in a proper parking bay is ok to ascertain whether to remain while reading signs - which is when "the no parking at any time" will be observed.

auteur

1505grandad said:

In their rejection they quote 13.4 as "This includes parking in prohibited areas."

However the actual CoP para states:-

"...or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc"

As it is an anpr capture how do they know that you parked in the very specifically mentioned instances.  

"13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc."

So leaving the car in a proper parking bay is ok to ascertain whether to remain while reading signs - which is when "the no parking at any time" will be observed.

Thanks very much.

Vehicle was photographed by an agent or ‘warden’ as they call them in appeal response, in person, who took a lot of photos in a very short period. The vehicle is not parked in contravention of any of the bits you quote from 13.4. In the wide photo it’s a car in the far distance.

With your last bit r.e. ‘leaving car in parking bay’ are you saying they’re correct that no grace period is needed as it’s not a ‘marked’ space or am I misunderstanding?

auteur

Just wanted to clarify my last question a bit:

The vehicle was not parked in contravention of any of the examples given ('such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc') but was also not in a 'marked' space. It was in such a place that was out of the way, where other vehicles were parked and so on.

I assume this should therefore not constitute a 'prohibited' space as it does not breach any obvious example suggested. And thus work in my favour for the appeal, in theory?

1505grandad

My bad  -  I mistook this for an anpr capture (pitfall of reading/having open several tabs) so I think my post is not relevant as you have been observed by someone with a camera and it is a non-car park piece of private land.

However there is a "P" sign at the entrance so perhaps one of the experts can comment if this would invite a motorist in and therefore the consideration period is valid as you have to read the on-site signs?

Also the ppc describe the photographer as a "warden"  -  so should a ticket have been left on the windscreen?

Coupon-mad

A PCN doesn't have to be affixed to the windscreen, not yet.  All the time the old failed BPA and IPC Codes of Practice apply we are stuck with the parking industry's own made-up rules.

Wait till they are regulated....in future all will be better.  It is coming.

I assume this should therefore not constitute a 'prohibited' space as it does not breach any obvious example suggested. And thus work in my favour for the appeal, in theory?

Yes.

auteur

Thanks for everyone's help. I've drafted an appeal to POPLA which is below. Any advice, suggests for edits, additional, removals all greatly appreciated. 

Thank you very much

I am appealing a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN" NUMBER) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (“PPS”) to the registered keeper of vehicle registration CAR REG. I am the Registered Keeper (“RK”) of the vehicle, there is no admission as to the identity of the driver at the time.

Attached Evidence:
‘PCN’ - PCN issued by PPS
‘Appeal’ - RK’s appeal to PCN
‘Response’ - PPS’s response to RK’s appeal
‘Signage’ - Photograph of signage (taken by PPS)
‘Car’ - Photograph of vehicle position (taken by PPS)

The most important grounds of this appeal are that the signage and alleged terms are forbidding. No contract was formed. Please refer to attached image to show signage at this location. ‘Strictly no parking, waiting or loading at any time’ is not what any rational person would consider to be an offer. I respectfully suggest that the effect of this prohibition has not been understood or accepted by PPS who, despite using the phrase 'no parking' or similar (unauthorised, prohibited, etc.) at least 10 times in their rejection letter, still contend that a contract was formed. 

Please note some example quotes from the appeal response:
The ‘vehicle was parked on private land, in strictly no parking area, which is a direct contravention of the advertised on the signage terms and conditions of parking [sic]’.
The ‘terms were adequately brought to the driver’s attention’.
The ‘terms and conditions clearly state that parking is not permitted at this location and there are no exemptions’.
The ‘driver should have established that they were not permitted to remain at the site [under any circumstances] … the driver was not entitled to a consideration period’.
The ‘evidence, which shows … parking is not permitted and further stated that there is no waiting at any time in the area’.

There are more examples to provide, but I think the point is made. The signage is clearly forbidding; no conditional offer to park was made, therefore a contract was not formed. A parking charge was not incurred and the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in this regard are not engaged. There is no offer of terms, there is no contract with PPS and there is no fee legally payable. 

This point should hopefully be overwhelming in proving that this is PCN has been wrongly issued, and overrules any further argument, but for the sake of any doubt I will provide some further reasoning.

PPS is a member of the British Parking Association and the PCN states that they operate in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice (CoP). Despite the vehicle being in place for less than 5 minutes to consider parking, PPS states in their response that the CoP says ‘there are instances where unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period. This includes parking in prohibited areas.’

In reality 13.4 of the CoP actually says ‘motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc.’ PPS’s own photographic evidence clearly show the vehicle is not in contravention of the specific examples provided and was in place for less than 5 minutes (the earliest photographic evidence provided by PPS is timestamped 08:51:18 and the latest is 08:54:51.

If it was to be said that the provisions of PoFA were engaged - which I do not believe is the case due to the forbidding signage - then PPS have breached their obligations in failing to identify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. PoFA Schedule 4, Section 9 (2a) states ‘the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates’.

The PCN issued by PPS states the location as ‘BT Ealing Green, Ealing, W5 5EJ’. The vehicle was not at W5 5EJ as stated. W5 5EJ is a non-existent postcode that has not been in use since 2005. The vehicle was also not at British Telecom (referenced in the letter as BT) which regardless has the postcode W5 5EN. This is a critical breach of PoFA and more importantly of the alleged details the PCN has been based on, which further renders it invalid.

Ddavef

Hi, I received exactly the same fine a few days ago except the driver didn't exit the vehicle whilst the passenger went to check the rules, the car was stationary only for a few moments and pulled to the side to allow another car to pass as it drove up the single lane track. I'd be very interested to hear how your appeal went as I intend on appealing this myself. Any update would be appreciated. Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

It's not a fine.

If you need more advice at POPLA stage please do start your own thread.  We'll help!