LPS (Local Parking Security Ltd) PCN

Bakezz2022

Morning everyone,

I have today received a parking charge notice from local parking security ltd for entering an ANPR controlled car park and it is issued for: Failure to Pay for the Duration of stay.

The ‘Driver’ lives a mere 3 minute walk from this car park, but as the partner of the driver has recently become unable to walk well after an injury, she was picked up from her Pilates class at this car park.

The vehicle entered at 19:02 and left at 19:17, the driver never left the vehicle and just waited for said partner.

Besides the fact that £60 (rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days) is completely disproportionate for the 15 minutes the driver was there, he never actually ‘parked’.

ive read the newbies thread, but just want to make sure its not worth citing the circumstances surrounding the partner not being able to walk and it only being 15 minutes? Or just stick to the template email set out in the thread for BPA members 

many thanks in advance 

troublemaker22

If you would like our advice on your specific PCN, please show it to us (front and back). Redact your name, address, vehicle number and PCN reference but leave all dates showing 

Bakezz2022

troublemaker22 said:

If you would like our advice on your specific PCN, please show it to us (front and back). Redact your name, address, vehicle number and PCN reference but leave all dates showing 

Thank you 

copy of letter above 

this was received today 

Coupon-mad

That'll be easy for the keeper to win at POPLA as long as you DON'T imply who was driving.


That is missing POFA-compliant wording in those basic paragraphs at the end of page one.

Bakezz2022

Coupon-mad said:

That'll be easy for the keeper to win at POPLA as long as you DON'T imply who was driving.  That is missing POFA-compliant wording in those basic paragraphs at the end of page one.

Thanks Coupon

So stick with the email template in newbies thread and then appeal to POPLA should they reject? 

troublemaker22

The POPLA wording needs to be very specific.  Something like the following should work, though you never can tell with POPLA assessors (some are dimmer than others):-

1.     Parliament has provided a statutory procedure to enable an operator who does not know the name and address of a driver to pursue the keeper instead.  That procedure is set out in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). 

3.  As stated in paragraph 21.2 of the BPA AOS Code of Practice, in order to pursue a keeper under POFA, an operator must comply with the strict requirements for keeper liability set out in POFA.  Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

3. POFA paragraph 9(2)(e) states that a notice to keeper must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.  The operator's purported notice to keeper does not include this mandatory statement.  Accordingly, the operator's purported notice to keeper was not properly issued and the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

4 POFA paragraph 9(2)(e) also states that a notice to keeper must invite the keeper (among other things) to pass the notice on to the driver. The operator's purported notice to keeper does not contain this element of the mandatory invitation.  Accordingly, the operator's purported notice to keeper was not properly issued and the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

5. Either one of the above failures to comply with POFA is alone sufficient to require this appeal to succeed.

Bakezz2022

As expected, they have rejected the appeal. So to POPLA it is using the above wording