Notice to keeper liability requirements - 'period of parking'

falkensmaze

Coupon-mad said:

Unless the signage is appalling and you have photos of that, I would not try POPLA and would sit on your hands and ignore PP. 

No paying, of course!

Seriously: NO-ONE here is telling you to pay (beware of private messages saying otherwise.  Parking firms read this forum).

Attached a picture of the signage - welcome your view on whether this would be considered appalling

I saw in the 'thread of pictures of 2023' you had mentioned that the charge on the notice of an increase up to £170 was not prominent and wasn't quantified on the signs... is your argument here related to unfair contract terms?  And would you consider any legs in this argument at POPLA?

Coupon-mad

I think POPLA only look at whether the £100 is 'in big' so I would not try it.  Do nothing.

Except escalate the complaint with CBRE.

troublemaker22

falkensmaze said:

 

"...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to...."

Since it is in brackets, does the notice need to explicitly say this to be POFA compliant? 

 Do you think the NTK being non-POFA complaint on this basis has legs in a POPLA appeal?

@falkensmaze,

The fact that it’s in brackets is irrelevant. Brackets, like commas, are an aid to comprehension not a secret signal that the words inside them don’t count. 

I’m not saying the words in brackets (or anything else in 9(2)(f)) must be quoted verbatim because that’s not what the statute requires. It requires the NTK to contain a warning to the effect that the creditor is entitled to recover from the keeper if all the applicable POFA conditions are met.  The creditor can choose their own words but those words must convey the required meaning. 

I have no idea whether this argument will persuade any particular POPLA assessor because they are not all equally dim. One or two might know how to read a statute. As @Coupon-mad can testify, many of them  are not very good at interpreting POFA and POPLA has twice issued apologies for this. 

Whatever2023

The Period of Parking quoted needn't be the entire period that the vehicle was parked inconsiderately; it needs to the period for which the charge relates i.e the period it was observed by the operator is ok.

Coupon-mad

Whatever2023 said:

The Period of Parking quoted needn't be the entire period that the vehicle was parked inconsiderately; it needs to the period for which the charge relates i.e the period it was observed by the operator is ok.

I find myself agreeing with you. No disrespect but as you know, that's rare for me with posts from admitted connected parties to the parking industry, like yourself. Your post is correct.

troublemaker22

With all due respect to @Coupon-mad and @Whatever2023, you both seem to have forgotten that no period was actually specified in this case.  I agree that the period doesn’t have to be the whole period the vehicle was onsite and that the period during which it was observed on-site is good enough. But the observation period (like any period) has a start time and a finish time. This PCN specified a single point in time, not a period. 

Whatever2023

POFA does not specify the format in which the period must be stated, and the NTK states "the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above"; therefore, this box is ticked e.g if the issue time is 10:30:00 then potentially the period started 10:29:59, and if the images show that the vehicle and signage is unattended, the consideration period has ended.

If you wish to avoid payment, you will need to find another legal basis for parking inconsiderately/obstructively (a pet hate of the majority of motorists) with impunity.

Coupon-mad

Whatever2023 said:

POFA does not specify the format in which the period must be stated, and the NTK states "the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above"; therefore, this box is ticked e.g if the issue time is 10:30:00 then potentially the period started 10:29:59, and if the images show that the vehicle and signage is unattended, the consideration period has ended.

If you wish to avoid payment, you will need to find another legal basis for parking inconsiderately/obstructively (a pet hate of the majority of motorists) with impunity.

That's harsh but the OP will hopefully know the above reply comes from the parking industry!

Whatever2023 - Do you know what?

Parking firms and your aggressive 'bulk legals' are a far bigger threat and 'pet hate' to average, considerate motorists than other drivers are, who were merely shopping (or perhaps loading or dropping off a passenger) and going about their daily life.

There's also no evidence that the OP parked inconsiderately or obstructively. You assumed that.  Parking with wheels over a line or close to premises to load something or drop off a passenger isn't obstructive and not a 'pet hate' of anyone driving past.

strawberries1

Coupon-mad said:

Whatever2023 said:

POFA does not specify the format in which the period must be stated, and the NTK states "the period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately preceding the incident time stated above"; therefore, this box is ticked e.g if the issue time is 10:30:00 then potentially the period started 10:29:59, and if the images show that the vehicle and signage is unattended, the consideration period has ended.

If you wish to avoid payment, you will need to find another legal basis for parking inconsiderately/obstructively (a pet hate of the majority of motorists) with impunity.

There's also no evidence that the OP parked inconsiderately or obstructively. You assumed that.  Parking with wheels over a line or close to premises to load something or drop off a passenger isn't obstructive and not a 'pet hate' of anyone driving past.

The PCN I'm currently appealing actually arose from the driver dropping of a passenger to collect an order from the restaurant beside which the car was "parked". It wasn't left unattended at any time. However, I didn't mention this in my appeal to POPLA. Would those points have helped at all?

I'm surprised they're not required to state the actual period as surely the time is material in determining whether or not the motorist has parked with permission. I guess if it's a no parking area then it doesn't matter at all is what they'll argue?
What about the location? Are they required to state the actual "relevant land" or a nearby location suffices?

Whatever2023

Whether the vehicle was attended or not is not relevant, nor is the full period that the vehicle was actually parked or indeed the purposes of the vehicles presence.