Parking Eye appeal

Coupon-mad

If you Google for those byelaws there will be a map.

dexion7

So, lodged the appeal with POPLA and PE have responded by uploading 43 pages of mostly standard response, but which claims the land is private land rather than having bylaws governing it. They claim the land – Tynemouth Station car park - is owned by Station Developments Ltd.

They concede that the NTK was ‘not issued under the protection of freedoms act’.  

Their response included a heavily redacted 3-page copy of the landowner agreement (though the landownership is disputed) which shows on page 1 that the agreement commenced on 9/9/2016 (effective date) for a term of 36 months and has thus expired. The subsequent pages (2 & 3) detail the T&Cs and are also heavily redacted, specifically section 12 which is “Termination”. To save them from making these details public and in an effort to override the 36 month termination clause, the explanation they give to describe the landowner agreement says

“Please be advised that in clause 4 of the redacted contract, the clause advises the following: 4.1 The terms and conditions contained within the Agreement shall come into force on the Effective Date and, subject to Clause 12, shall continue in force for the Term and Extended Term. 4.2 Unless the Customer provide written notice to terminate, no less than three (3) months prior to the expiry of the Term (or Extended Term) this Agreement automatically continue in force for each Extended Term, thereafter. We can confirm this contract has not been terminated by either party, so the contract was effective on the date the charge was incurred.”

 Though I’ve tried, I’m unable to determine who owns the land and I’ve 7 days so how do I respond to POPLA?

B789

Station Developments Ltd are contracted to "preserve Tynemouth Station through refurbishment and restoration and to provide a framework for long term sustainability of the asset through development and the letting of land and buildings within the site."

However, they could just be acting as agents for the landowner. Try contacting them for clarification.

This link provides a phone number for them:

https://pomanda.com/company/02587895/station-developments-limited

Coupon-mad

dexion7 said:

So, lodged the appeal with POPLA and PE have responded by uploading 43 pages of mostly standard response...

I’ve 7 days so how do I respond to POPLA?

You just repeat this (below) and say "I win"!

They concede that the NTK was ‘not issued under the protection of freedoms act’.  

You cannot lose as long as you appealed as registered keeper and the driver has never been admitted. Say that to POPLA.

Fruitcake

You have six days to rebut PE's PoPLA response, not seven. They count the issue date as day one.

However, you refer to PE's statement that the NTK was not PoFA compliant and therefore the keeper cannot be held liable. That should be all that you need, but by all means pick holes in any other comments as well. Just be aware that you only have 2000 Characters to rebut.

dexion7

Received POPLA response today - they allowed the appeal.

Interestingly, they address the appeal firstly by considering whether it's on 'relevant land' to determine whether POFA *could* apply even though the NTK was non-POFA compliant in any case.   

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • the site is not relevant land so the parking operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. • the operator has not shown that it is pursuing the driver. • the signage is insufficient and cannot be seen in the dark. • there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge. • the operator does not have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. • the operator has breached the ICO Code of Practice. • there isn’t any evidence of the period parked. • the images of the vehicle do not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice and may have been forged. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided various links. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN as the driver has not been identified. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Within PoFA 2012, it states that the act only applies on “relevant land”. Section 3(1) defines “relevant land” as any land other than: “(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” As the site in which the PCN was issued is a railway, it cannot be classed as relevant land. As such, the operator is not able to meet the provisions of PoFA 2012 and is therefore unable to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Fruitcake

Well done.

Please post this on the PoPLA Decisions thread as well, with a link to this thread.

POPLA Decisions — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Checking whether the alleged event occurred on non-relevant land first is quite normal.

B789

Because you only have to win on one point. One of your points was, as the assessor summarised, "The appellant says that: • the site is not relevant land so the parking operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. ".

The assessor can't be bothered and probably doesn't have time to answer all your points. So they just picked an obvious one and gave you the win you wanted. It didn't matter that the PCN wasn't PoFA compliant, whether they claimed it was or it wasn't. They were trying to pin the PCN on you as the RK and because it is not relevant land, they can't, whether the PCN is or isn't PoFA compliant.

Coupon-mad

dexion7 said:

Received POPLA response today - they allowed the appeal.

Interestingly, they address the appeal firstly by considering whether it's on 'relevant land' to determine whether POFA *could* apply even though the NTK was non-POFA compliant in any case.   

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • the site is not relevant land so the parking operator cannot pursue the registered keeper. • the operator has not shown that it is pursuing the driver. • the signage is insufficient and cannot be seen in the dark. • there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge. • the operator does not have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land. • the operator has breached the ICO Code of Practice. • there isn’t any evidence of the period parked. • the images of the vehicle do not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice and may have been forged. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided various links. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN as the driver has not been identified. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). Within PoFA 2012, it states that the act only applies on “relevant land”. Section 3(1) defines “relevant land” as any land other than: “(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); (b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority; (c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” As the site in which the PCN was issued is a railway, it cannot be classed as relevant land. As such, the operator is not able to meet the provisions of PoFA 2012 and is therefore unable to pursue the registered keeper for the unpaid parking charge. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Yay!  Hats off to POPLA in this matter.

POPLA appear to have re-trained Assessors since the NSL Airport debacle!

dexion7

Fruitcake said:

Checking whether the alleged event occurred on non-relevant land first is quite normal.

determining whether the land was relevant land wasn't simple and only upon reading the evidence submitted by PE to POPLA did this become more clear. the following observation was submitted to POPLA after reading PE's evidence:

 

1. The address of the land specified in the landowner agreement shown on page 9 of 43 in ParkingEye Ltd’s submission to POPLA is ‘Station Terrace, North Shields, NE30 4RE’. However, Parkingeye Ltd have provided a plan view photograph of the car park area where they claim that the alleged contravention took place (page 38 of 43 in their submission) which shows the area at Station Mews, North Shields, NE30 2TF - over 100 meters away from Station Terrace. Station Terrace does not hold any ParkingEye Ltd signs or cameras. Therefore, even according to their own documentation the landowner agreement refers to a different location.

 

The link to google map below shows both Station Road and Station Mews (note the location of Priory Taxis on the map and ParkingEye Ltd’s photograph).

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.0177437,-1.4290133,18z