Baysentry PCN- Citipark app error

Coupon-mad

2 and 4 are the same thing?

Community1234

Coupon-mad said:

2 and 4 are the same thing?

Oh I didn't realise. I found the points posted by Umkomass on this thread when I searched for NON-POFA compliant POPLA  appeals. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80533347#Comment_80533347?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=non-pofa+compliant



I thought I had read through enough posts to get it right by now but clearly not!


These are the points I have now:
 

1. Failure to Demonstrate Driver Liability: The operator, BaySentry Solutions, has failed to demonstrate that the individual they are pursuing is indeed the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

2.  No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

4. CITIPARK app failure


Ive also come across the point below a few times and wondered if it should be added?

Notice to Keeper wording not POFA 2012 compliant.

 

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) shown from Euro Car Parks Ltd, use the words "You are advised..." instead of "You are warned..." when referring to the 28 days after which the Registered Keeper (RK) will become liable.

PoFA 2012 9(2)(f) specifically states "The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given..."

The following argument could be used to hammer the point home:

In arguing the case that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) from an unregulated private parking company is invalid due to the use of "advised" instead of "warned" in relation to liability, POPLA should consider the following points:

1. **Specific Language of PoFA 2012

   - The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) sets out specific requirements for NtKs, particularly in relation to the liability of the registered keeper (RK). It explicitly uses the term "warn" when describing the notification to the keeper about their potential liability.

 

2. **Legal Precision

   - Legal documents and statutes are often drafted with precision. If the legislation specifies the use of the term "warn", it implies a deliberate choice of language, and deviation from this language may be argued as a failure to meet the legal requirements.

 

3. **Intent and Clarity:**

   - The use of the term "warn" implies a certain level of seriousness and urgency. It suggests that the registered keeper needs to be clearly made aware of the consequences and potential liability. If the NtK uses the term "advised" instead, it may be argued that it does not meet the required level of clarity and seriousness as intended by the legislation.

 

4. **Purpose of Warning

   - PoFA 2012 includes the requirement for a warning to ensure that the registered keeper is informed about their potential liability and the importance of addressing the matter promptly. If the NtK uses a softer term like "advised", it may be contended that the purpose of the warning, which is to convey a sense of urgency and potential consequences, is not adequately fulfilled.

 

5. **Legislative Compliance:**

   - Compliance with legislative requirements is crucial for the validity of any legal document, including NtKs. If the language used in the NtK deviates from what is prescribed by the legislation, it may be argued that the document fails to meet the statutory requirements and, therefore, is not legally effective.

Coupon-mad

But it's a non-POFA NTK anyway.  Posted too late and it doesn't claim keeper liability.  They aren't even attempting to hold you liable, which was said on page 1 of your thread.

That (the fact no compliantly POFA-worded NTK was served and it arrived 3 weeks after the event) should be your first point and it is one of the POPLA templates in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread; already written.

Easy win. And not using that tenuous and convoluted argument that you found!

Community1234

Coupon-mad said:

But it's a non-POFA NTK anyway.  Posted too late and it doesn't claim keeper liability.  They aren't even attempting to hold you liable, which was said on page 1 of your thread.

That (the fact no compliantly POFA-worded NTK was served and it arrived 3 weeks after the event) should be your first point and it is one of the POPLA templates in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread; already written.

Easy win. And not using that tenuous and convoluted argument that you found!

Thanks for your assistance with this. 



Is this the point I should be adding rather than the one above?

 This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Baysentry have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 21 days after the alleged event. This means that Baysentry  have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.




so if correct my 5 points will be:

1.  This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

2. Failure to Demonstrate Driver Liability: The operator, BaySentry Solutions, has failed to demonstrate that the individual they are pursuing is indeed the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

3.  No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

5. CITIPARK app failure

Coupon-mad

Yes.  Easy innit? That winning paragraph was there for you all the time!

Community1234

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.  Easy innit? That winning paragraph was there for you all the time. 

Took me long enough 🤦
I will send that off and update the thread with what happens. 
Do appreciate your help. 

Community1234

Email received from POPLA to say it's been cancelled.

Massive thanks to everyone that helped.

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.