Is this National Parking Control NtK PoFA compliant?

Debszzzz2

I'm handling a PCN on behalf of a friend. They received an NtK from NPC which does not mention PoFA 2012 at all. No mention of it anywhere. However, they do use some of the wording without referencing which paragraph of PoFA they are relying on.

Does this mean that they cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper? The drivers identity has not been revealed. Plan A is still in progress but I am seeking the regulars opinion on this.

Debszzzz2

Just to add a bit of background...

The driver used their membership card for a different David Lloyd gym to get in and out of this David Lloyd car park which is controlled by a barrier. They received the PCN for parking in a parent and child slot without a valid parent & child permit on display. There were no markings in the parking area - no obvious or prominent signs. As a first time visitor they were unaware of any restrictions.

Umkomaas

It's good enough. 

What exactly is the charge 'A valid parent and child ..... must be displayed in the front windscreen at all times' - how can you fit both of them on the dashboard 😄 (or is there something to fill the blank with)?

Do they have any other photos to back up their claim - check their website under your PCN reference. 

Fruitcake

The PoFA does not specifically need to be mentioned, but the NTK must comply with the relevant dates and include the mandatory wording, which it appears to do.

Plan A is always a complaint from the keeper to the landowner and the keeper's MP.

Are there any other photos on the PPC's website? I ask because there appears to be something displayed in the bottom of the windscreen on the passenger side that could be a permit. If there are no clear photos showing that part of the windscreen/dashboard, then there is no proof that a permit was not displayed.

Your friend should get photos of the site and signage, including surface markings and signs on lamp posts. They should then carefully compare them to see if the wording and symbols are identical on all the signs, and state how someone is supposed to obtain a permit.

Ideally your friend should take over this thread so nothing gets lost in translation.

Debszzzz2

How is one supposed to know which paragraph of PoFA they are relying on if they fail to actually mention that they are relying on the act to hold the keeper liable? Is it documented anywhere that reliance on the Act does not have to mention which part of the Act is being relied on? That's a big "get out clause" if ever I saw one.

This is what is stated on the NPC website under the appeal tab:

CONTRAVENTION DETAILS

Notice Serial Number: XXXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM): XXXXXX

Vehicle Make: Volkswagen

The Site Enforcer had reasonable belief that the above vehicle had committed the following contravention:

Contravention: Parent and Child Bays - A valid parent and child permit must be displayed in the front windscreen at all times

Site / Location: David Lloyd Nottingham

Postal Town / City: Nottingham (NG8 5AR )

Date and time of recorded contravention: 20th January, 2024 at 12:54:15

You will see in the other photos from the NPC attendant that there were no signs at the bay where the car was parked and the ground markings were faded and worn out to the extent that it was impossible to discern that was a parent and child bay. The close-up photo of the sign with the "parent & baby" sign is not the sign that is visible in the wide angle shot that is to the left of the car , which does not have a parent and child sign on it.

Debszzzz2

Can't post the photos because of this message:

"Whoops, your thread has been caught in on our suspicious thread filters! If you think this is a mistake, please email ForumTeam@MoneySavingExpert.com with details of the thread"

Debszzzz2

These are the images: (If someone could make the links live please)

httpx://ibb.co/LJ9K5sQ

httpx://ibb.co/LSSpKG6

httpx://ibb.co/qdCBPsC

httpx://ibb.co/mqrC6wY

httpx://ibb.co/kXF5zcc

httpx://ibb.co/xS5vrp3

httpx://ibb.co/LSL2zwq

troublemaker22

I do not agree that it is POFA-compliant. Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the warning to state that the creditor’s ability to recover from the keeper is subject to all applicable POFA requirements being met. 

In POPLA case 6063003182 the assessor allowed an appeal on the basis that an NTK that fails to mention POFA does not satisfy the warning requirement in 9(2)(f). Obviously a POPLA decision is unlikely to carry much weight with the rival IAS, especially as the IPC’s model notices to keeper contain the same error.  But a plain reading of the statute requires the warning to refer explicitly to POFA. 

What a county court judge would decide on any given day is anyone’s guess. 

Fruitcake

https://ibb.co/LJ9K5sQ

https://ibb.co/LSSpKG6

https://ibb.co/qdCBPsC

https://ibb.co/mqrC6wY

https://ibb.co/kXF5zcc

https://ibb.co/xS5vrp3

https://ibb.co/LSL2zwq

Fruitcake

Debszzzz2 said:

How is one supposed to know which paragraph of PoFA they are relying on if they fail to actually mention that they are relying on the act to hold the keeper liable? Is it documented anywhere that reliance on the Act does not have to mention which part of the Act is being relied on? That's a big "get out clause" if ever I saw one.

This is what is stated on the NPC website under the appeal tab:

CONTRAVENTION DETAILS

Notice Serial Number: XXXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM): XXXXXX

Vehicle Make: Volkswagen

The Site Enforcer had reasonable belief that the above vehicle had committed the following contravention:

Contravention: Parent and Child Bays - A valid parent and child permit must be displayed in the front windscreen at all times

Site / Location: David Lloyd Nottingham

Postal Town / City: Nottingham (NG8 5AR )

Date and time of recorded contravention: 20th January, 2024 at 12:54:15

You will see in the other photos from the NPC attendant that there were no signs at the bay where the car was parked and the ground markings were faded and worn out to the extent that it was impossible to discern that was a parent and child bay. The close-up photo of the sign with the "parent & baby" sign is not the sign that is visible in the wide angle shot that is to the left of the car , which does not have a parent and child sign on it.

This is why I suggested paying particular attention to the signs and comparing them to see if they are identical.

According to the sign on a pole, the one that forms a contract with motorists, a parent and child bay is designated by an icon showing a man in a kilt, a person of short statute, and a woman wearing trouserings. (Other interpretations and genders are available).

The sign of the triangle with circular blobs under the main sign has the legend, Designated parent and baby, but does not include any terms and conditions, therefore there it is purely an information sign that does not form a contract.

These icons were not displayed at the location where the vehicle was parked, neither on poles or on the ground. No images of surfaces marking were present at the material location, otherwise the parking operative would have taken photos of them.


None of the icons are of a nationally or internationally recognised standard, unlike a disabled icon, therefore they require an explanation of their meaning, and must have an explanation of how breaching terms and conditions can attract a charge.
Whilst it could be argued that a parent and baby sign is also a parent and child sign, the icon showing an undefined triangle with blobs is not the same as the icon on the signs forming a contract.


There are no readable signs or surface markings anywhere near the vehicle; none that define the parking space as a particular type, and none capable of forming a contract with the motorist.
The vehicle was not therefore parked in a designated parent and child bay, therefore did not need to display a parent and child permit, therefore no parking breach occurred.

fisherjim

Those photos as evidence are laughable there are no indications of a Parent and Child bay.

Obviously the idiots at NPC need to get painting, and the IPC audit procedure fails yet again.

Note the difference between 2016 and now:

2016

NPC's pathetic evidence: