PCN by TPS from cameras - but no proof the car was parked where the permit wasn't valid

SouthLondonUser

A letter was received in the post with a parking charge notice from Total Parking Solutions, for allegedly not paying for parking at the University of Surrey car park. In line with feedback from the forum, I am not going to confirm who is the registered keeper, who is the driver, if the matter concerns me directly or someone who asked for my help, etc.

 

The photographic evidence which is in the letter and which can be viewed online simply shows the car entering and leaving a certain road. There is no photo nor any other proof of what the terms to park in that area were, nor how visible the sign was, or how close to the parking area. Should this not be reason enough why the charge is invalid?

 

Especially in this case, because there is a valid parking permit registered to the vehicle in question. This permit is valid in most of the university car park, except for a few areas. Well, our esteemed friends at TPS provided no proof that the car was parked in an area where the permit wasn’t valid!

 

What is the best bet to challenge this charge?

1. Mention that the car has a permit to park in most of the car park, and TPS did not prove where the car was parked, i.e. that it was parked in an area where the permit wasn’t valid? The picture is very generic, it could be any road.
2. Don’t mention the permit, but simply point out that TPS did not provide any proof of the sign indicating the terms allegedly breached?
3. Something else?

 

I have done my homework and gone through the newbie guide at: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1 but didn’t manage to find an answer. To elaborate:

 

• ·  Complaining to the university to get the fine cancelled is unfortunately not an option.
• · The vehicle was caught with ANPR (no windscreen notice) and TPS is a member of the BPA. I understand from the FAQ that this charge notice therefore counts as my “notice to keeper”. It is the first and so far only letter that’s arrived.
•   I see that the template in blue at the link above mentions the need to include a close up photo of the relevant sign (no such photo was provided, neither in the notice nor online)
•   I note the newbie sticky has a link on the importance of clear, visible signs: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71285691#Comment_71285691
• However, I have been unable to find anything on whether the operator needs to include a picture of the relevant sign

 Thanks!

SouthLondonUser

PS to be clear: I am unsure if it is necessary for the operator to include a picture of the sign.

My point is that all the automatic number plate recognition cameras, which took the photos, can prove is that the car entered the car park. They cannot prove that the car entered a section of the car park where the permit wasn't  valid, rather than one where instead it was. The picture shows a very generic road - no signs are visible. See below.

Even the timestamp only says "university of Surrey" - not anything which could identify the exact location, and therefore whether the permit there was valid or not

PPS I am told the car parking areas were reshuffled recently, for no apparent reason. It's almost as if the landowner could profit by creating confusion...

Coupon-mad

Is the NTK a POFA one  like the picture of a TPS NTK in my thread of NTK pictures?

SouthLondonUser

@Coupon-mad I'm sorry, I'm not sure what NTK templates you were referring to.

I have put pictures below. Between the address and the pictures of the car it says that liability lies with the driver.

Then, in the right column, after IMPORTANT NOTE, it says they have the right to recover from the Registered Keeper if the driver isn't identified.

The pictures are below.

The links to view them full size are:

https://i.postimg.cc/DZYqmxkQ/Univ-surrey-front-anonymised.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/gjrMrwx5/Univ-surrey-back-anonymised.jpg

Coupon-mad

Click on my username to find the thread I said.  Better you look at our pics and learn what we mean, than us looking at this one and leaving you none the wiser why we say what we say.

SouthLondonUser

@coupon-mad

The notice is the same format as this one: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80526910/#Comment_80526910 which you said was POFA compliant. It was sent in the prescribed time frame, too.

I couldn't find in that thread an explanation of WHY it was POFA compliant. Can you help me understand that, please?

Also, if it is POFA compliant, does it mean there is no disadvantage in admitting who was the driver? or is there still a difference?

PS the forum is quite unintuitive: if you right click on a user's name and open the link in a new page, there doesn't seem to be a way to get to their threads; you need to left click, and then click again on 'threads'

Coupon-mad

To be POFA compliant, the notice to keeper has to meet certain wording and date deadlines (see paragraph 9 of Schedule 4

There also has to be 'adequate notice' on site (signage  terms) and a 'relevant obligation or contract' must have been breached.

The POFA warning of keeper liability set out in Sch4 is that right hand paragraph on your NTK.

So yes, it doesn't matter in your case if the keeper admits to driving when they appeal. In your case I would deny that the car parked in an area where the UoS permit is not applicable and the photos only show a generic road.  Upload the permit aa evidence.

At POPLA stage, you'd need more detail, the permit plus a Google map showing how vast the site is, and argue again that the car was permitted and it was displayed.

Plus the usual points in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread which is all about POPLA.

SouthLondonUser

@Coupon-mad Thank you. I would like to think that having a permit, plus the lack of any proof of where exactly the car had been parked, should mean an easy win, but we'll see.

Just for my understanding, and just for my curiosity: if there had been no permit registered to the car, would there have been any defense against the charge? Specifically:

1. are parking charge notices valid even if the operator shows no evidence of where the car was parked, where the sign was, how visible or clear the sign was, etc?
2. can the operator present evidence of the sign(s) after they issue the charge?
3. I can think of a few supermarket car parks with only one entry and with clear signs. Would I be right in assuming that, in these cases, a charge which shows only CCTV photos of the car entering from the only entrance and leaving from the only exit, without a picture of the signs, would be valid?
4. Similarly, if the site is large, with multiple entries and multiple parking areas / lots, is a parking charge valid even if the operator presents no proof of where exactly the car was and what the signs were there?

I would like to think that the answer to 4) is no, but common sense and bureaucracy don't always go hand in hand

Are there precedents on this?

Thank you!

KeithP

SouthLondonUser said:

PS the forum is quite unintuitive: if you right click on a user's name and open the link in a new page, there doesn't seem to be a way to get to their threads; you need to left click, and then click again on 'threads'

You are mistaken.... well, not about it being unintuitive.  

One can get to their threads by right clicking on a user's name and opening the link in a new page, and then scroll down, you will find the word Threads. Click on it.

Coupon-mad

Answers to your questions:

-  are parking charge notices valid even if the operator shows no evidence of where the car was parked, where the sign was, how visible or clear the sign was, etc?

The PCN doesn't have to show signage but appeal evidence certainly would have to.  They don't normally have to show where the car was parked (they can't, when it's ANPR based) which in your case will make it very difficult for them!  Because, as you say, this is your main appeal point, that there are several parts to the campus, the vast majority of which are for permit holders and you were a permit holder and it is your case that the images merely show the car in transit to the valid place where the vehicle was finally parked (with permit displayed).  In a permit area.

You could even (POPLA stage, as evidence) attach a timestamped photo of your permit and one of the many signs at your workplace and say "this is the nearest sign to where I was parked" and put them to strict proof if they disagree!  I think they'll offer no contest at POPLA as it would be hard to contradict you.



-  can the operator present evidence of the sign(s) after they issue the charge?

Yes, in appeal evidence. Normal!



-  I can think of a few supermarket car parks with only one entry and with clear signs. Would I be right in assuming that, in these cases, a charge which shows only CCTV photos of the car entering from the only entrance and leaving from the only exit, without a picture of the signs, would be valid?

Yes and no. It's not 'invalid' but NO-ONE should be paying any private PCN (even if they think they might be bang to rights) all the time the industry remains unregulated which is hopefully only this year.  Statutory rules are coming in imminently. And a properly independent Single Appeals Service too.



-   Similarly, if the site is large, with multiple entries and multiple parking areas / lots, is a parking charge valid even if the operator presents no proof of where exactly the car was and what the signs were there?

NO. Same answer as above.  ALL ARE ROGUE.

SouthLondonUser

@Coupon-mad Thank you, very useful.

What do you mean when you say the industry is about to become regulated? I understand a new code of conduct was introduced recently, which, among other things, introduced a 10-min grace period and curbed excessive "fees" by these operators. What would the new regulation entail?

One last comment on the case I presented: the driver in question confirms they were at a University of Surrey site on that day, but cannot genuinely remember in which of the two main sites, nor in which of the many areas within each of the two sites, they were on that day. The burden of proof should be on the operator, after all.