EV charging at service station - PCN

TheDefiantOne

So I'm going to appeal it because I don't trust them to do it adequately. They have already said they had a similar pcn and they just paid.

This is my first draft if anyone would mind having a read please:

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 22nd June 2023 CP Plus issued a Parking Charge Notice (dated 9th June) to MY COMPANY via Arval Uk Ltd as the registered keeper. This was forwarded via email to myself (as hirer/lessee of the vehicle) and the notice highlights that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “exceeding the free parking period”.

As the hirer/lessee I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled, on the following grounds:

 

1) No Hirer/Keeper Liability

2) Driver not identified

3) Inadequate Signage

4) No Landowner Authority

5) EV Charging not parking in car park

  

1) No Hirer/Keeper Liability

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with either the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the BPA Code of Practice.

 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper or hirer but this right is strictly subjected to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper or hirer liability' does not exist.

 However, the creditor has not satisfied the conditions to transfer liability:

 POFA Paragraph 14 (2)The conditions are that- (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragragh 13(2) and the notice to Keeper.

 The documents required are defined here:

Paragraph 13 (2)(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

This requirement is also clearly stated in the BPA Code of Practice.

CP Plus failed to send a copy of the required documentation, either with the original Parking Charge Notice or the subsequent reminder from the 26th June.

 

2) Driver not identified

CP Plus has not shown that the individual they are pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

 According to POFA Paragraph 5 (1)The first condition is that the creditor- (a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but (b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

 There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper or the hirer of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. 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. Furthermore, 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. Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as hirer of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using POFA.

  

3) Inadequate Signage

POFA states regarding onsite signage:

 Paragraph 3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by- (a)the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b)where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which- (i)specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.

 

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. Signage is obscure and scarce throughout the site; wordy and of small font with the £100 parking charge unclear and not highlighted. There are two bays available for the one Gridserve EV point available, and when parked in these bays there is no signage in the driver’s view that states the parking charge. There is a sign in between the Gridserve signs, but this was blank.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.

So for this appeal, I put CP Plus to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

  

4) No Landowner authority

The creditor is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (Paragraph 7).

 7.1 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.

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, then I require that they produce strict proof of both compliance with all of the above requirements and of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee who has no more title than the operator).

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). No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that CP Plus is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts (which is a strict requirement within the BPA Code of Practice)
I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance, particularly points 7.3 b) and d).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers.

I require CP Plus to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of BPA Code of Practice. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

 

5) EV Charging not parking in car park

The driver was using the EV charger and not only is this not 'parking' in the car park, but no CP Plus contractual signs are visible at the EV bays.  Proof of charging is attached as evidence, as well as view of the signage from the bays.

I would also invite CP Plus to prove that they had authority from the charging operator (Gridserve) to issue a fine for parking in a bay that was marked as operated by Gridserve for charging purposes.

**********

I have contested this with CP Plus with regards to their PCN reference _____, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided a POPLA reference XYZ. ( I haven't had it actually rejected yet but I'm sure I inevitably will be)

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Yours sincerely,

NAME

TheDefiantOne

First pic shows ev bays and view from drivers seat. The circled sign was blank, had nothing on it. Sign to left was out of immediate view, extremely small font and very wordy.
Second pic shows entrance sign - £100 parking charge not obvious.
Third pic shows the kind of signage in a couple places round the car park. Cannot be read unless parked up, font is way too small.

TheDefiantOne

First email contact forwarded from my work secretary from the lease company with the PCN scan attached. (PCN see below)
Could not immediately appeal as it said my PCN had been reissued and therefore reference was no longer valid.
Received reminder:

[Image removed by Forum Team]

TheDefiantOne

Not sure if I can add anything to the appeal - can I put about it not being received within 14 days from date of parking incident as per the whole 'You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.'

Anything else would be greatly appreciated as well.

KeithP

TheDefiantOne said:

Not sure if I can add anything to the appeal - can I put about it not being received within 14 days from date of parking incident...

That fourteen days only applies in getting the Notice to Keeper to the keeper - i.e. the original notice sent to Arval.

TheDefiantOne

KeithP said:

TheDefiantOne said:

Not sure if I can add anything to the appeal - can I put about it not being received within 14 days from date of parking incident...

That fourteen days only applies in getting the Notice to Keeper to the keeper - i.e. the original notice sent to Arval.

Thanks Keith. Does the hire company count as the keeper then or would that be my workplace?

Coupon-mad

Your workplace are the hirer/lessee.  

Embed your photo of the blank sign into your word doc and add a comment explaining the evidence but without implying who was driving.  Same with the EV charging proof.

Then save as a PDF.

Embed photos into the 'story' like you see in the example linked in the NEWBIES thread, so that the Assessor only has to read one  PDF.

Umkomaas

Is the above appeal to go to CP Plus or to POPLA?  Is it being sent in your name or your company's name? If your name, has your company formally transferred liability to you?

B789

Be very careful how you word some of your appeal as you are possibly insinuating that you were the driver:

5) EV Charging not parking in car park

The driver was using the EV charger and not only is this not 'parking' in the car park, but no CP Plus contractual signs are visible at the EV bays.  Proof of charging is attached as evidence, as well as view of the signage from the bays.

I would also invite CP Plus to prove that they had authority from the charging operator (Gridserve) to issue a fine for parking in a bay that was marked as operated by Gridserve for charging purposes.

If your “proof” of “evidence” of charging is a receipt in your name, does that mean that you were the driver?

Also, stop calling it a “fine”.

TheDefiantOne

Coupon-mad said:

Your workplace are the hirer/lessee.  

Embed your photo of the blank sign into your word doc and add a comment explaining the evidence but without implying who was driving.  Same with the EV charging proof.

Then save as a PDF.

Embed photos into the 'story' like you see in the example linked in the NEWBIES thread, so that the Assessor only has to read one  PDF.

Ah okay I see, because my name isn't anywhere on the documents that makes sense. Thank you I will do that