First Parking LLP - how litigious/aggressive?

LDast

The NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA in that there is no invitation or suggestion that the keeper pay the charge. Have a read of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). Whilst First Parking won't agree, it should certainly be raised in a POPLA appeal and you only need to lead the assessor by the nose in simple steps to show that they have not fully complied with the applicable conditions of PoFA. Unless the drivers identity has already been revealed, they cannot hold the known keeper liable for the unknown drivers breach.

Please confirm whether those two images in the NtK are time stamped. If not, there is a BPA CoP breach that POPLA have ruled on in the recent past that means the NtK was issued incorrectly.

Coupon-mad

It also seems to fail to 'identify the creditor' which is particularly relevant with a NTK which is headed up with the University name, as if they sent it.

artyboy

LDast said:

The NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA in that there is no invitation or suggestion that the keeper pay the charge. Have a read of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). Whilst First Parking won't agree, it should certainly be raised in a POPLA appeal and you only need to lead the assessor by the nose in simple steps to show that they have not fully complied with the applicable conditions of PoFA. Unless the drivers identity has already been revealed, they cannot hold the known keeper liable for the unknown drivers breach.

Please confirm whether those two images in the NtK are time stamped. If not, there is a BPA CoP breach that POPLA have ruled on in the recent past that means the NtK was issued incorrectly.

Ah, ok, I must admit that I'd read that section, namely:

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

   (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

   (ii) If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

as meaning that the NTK only had to state one of part (i) or (ii) because of the 'or' separating them.

But I can see that it does make sense that both are required - presumably the argument here (to POPLA) is that without the part (i) invitation for the keeper to pay, it just looks like the PPC is trying to trick/pressure the keeper into dobbing the driver in...

Bit of a technicality I suppose, but with this particular industry, it's not something I'll lose sleep over 

Your second point - the images themselves do not have an embedded timestamp - it's only stated within the letter text. I'll look into that one further (don't suppose you have a link anywhere) as it sounds more 'meaty'... it's possible that these are cropped images and the originals are timestamped, but if the POPLA ruling states that the timestamp has to be included on the NTK then perfect!

Coupon-mad

Thanks for the new NTK pics. I've sorted out the broken link and used your images now.

artyboy

Coupon-mad said:

It also seems to fail to 'identify the creditor' which is particularly relevant with a NTK which is headed up with the University name, as if they sent it.

The text specifically says "First Parking LLP (as the Creditor)"

Coupon-mad

Ah, I missed that line - apologies.

artyboy

Well they rejected the latest appeal, I thought they might have been a bit more pragmatic after the last one but there you go, on to POPLA. 

It also occurs to me that the (not time stamped) photos are entry and exit to a huge campus - probably a few hundred acres - with loads of different car parks with several sets of terms (including forbidding notices for staff areas). And lots of roads with meaningless double yellow lines... so how they think they can demonstrate what contractual terms might apply, let alone that the car was ever parked anywhere at all, is laughable. 

Anyway will let you know how it goes, if it's useful for others...

Zbubuman

artyboy said:

Well they rejected the latest appeal, I thought they might have been a bit more pragmatic after the last one but there you go, on to POPLA. 

It also occurs to me that the (not time stamped) photos are entry and exit to a huge campus - probably a few hundred acres - with loads of different car parks with several sets of terms (including forbidding notices for staff areas). And lots of roads with meaningless double yellow lines... so how they think they can demonstrate what contractual terms might apply, let alone that the car was ever parked anywhere at all, is laughable. 

Anyway will let you know how it goes, if it's useful for others...

Check the online evidence as well. Because if the photos are not time stamped. That will be another easy win a popla. 

LDast

It doesn't matter whether the file images are time stamped. The images on the NtK must not be cropped or altered. If they are, the NtK is invalid and this has previously been a winning point at POPLA.

BPA CoP 21.5a applies. POPLA appeal 2413353469 was won on this point where assessor Gayle Stanton stated:

The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments that although the operator has provided full date stamped photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not compliant. I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.

I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.

These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK.

The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Regarding PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), the notice must "invite" the keeper to pay the charge, which it doesn't. The "or" means that 9(2)(e)(ii) must also be stated on the NtK so that the keeper is given the choice of paying the charge or if the keeper wasn't the driver, to tell the creditor who was driving.

artyboy

LDast said:

It doesn't matter whether the file images are time stamped. The images on the NtK must not be cropped or altered. If they are, the NtK is invalid and this has previously been a winning point at POPLA.

BPA CoP 21.5a applies. POPLA appeal 2413353469 was won on this point where assessor Gayle Stanton stated:

The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments that although the operator has provided full date stamped photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not compliant. I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.

I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.

These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK.

The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Regarding PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), the notice must "invite" the keeper to pay the charge, which it doesn't. The "or" means that 9(2)(e)(ii) must also be stated on the NtK so that the keeper is given the choice of paying the charge or if the keeper wasn't the driver, to tell the creditor who was driving.

Thanks, that's exactly the POPLA case detail I'd previously asked about! As you say, they don't get a second chance to show time stamped originals, as the CoP breach is for the original NTK.

I did sort of hope that someone might have had half a brain cell there given that point and the 'invite keeper' one, but I guess it's just another factory operation where they accept the cost of the occasional POPLA loss. Either way, I'm going to town on this one...