Barnet Hospital pcn but could not park

dadsma

Thanks, I get it now!  

dadsma

Popla rejected our appeal.  I am concerned that the adjudicator did not properly consider our point that the pcn failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 2012.  

Our appeal point:

2) The PCN is not compliant with the strict requirement of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)  

A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served on me. The Parking Charge Notice/NTK fails to meet the strict terms therefore only the driver can be lawfully pursued for alleged breach and liability and no keeper liability can apply -  The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.

Nowhere on the PCN is there an invitation (or other synonym) for the keeper to pay the charge.

POFA schedule 4 section 9 (1) states

“A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper…..is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the 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….to notify the creditor of….driver details

The PCN must specifically invite the keeper to pay the charge or provide driver details. This PCN fails to invite the keeper to pay the charge. It is not on the front of the PCN it is not in the INFORMATION section, and not in the POFA section either.  

Extract from the POPLA decision

“ The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. 

PoFA 2012 is the law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver is not identified. For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9.2, it needs to state that if the details of the driver during the time of the contravention are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is liable for the unpaid parking charge. It must also have been issued to the keeper within the relevant time period. 

There is nothing within PoFA 2012 that states the information described above must be contained on the first page of the notice. As all the information was contained within the PCN and sent to the appellant, I am satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper. ”

Is this worthy of a formal complaint to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

Probably not. Lack of express invitation to pay is a bit tenuous anyway. It is implied that this letter is asking you to pay. 

Sit tight and let them sue. Hopefully they'll farm it out to DCB Legal and therefore the case will end up discontinued as per that legal firm's bulk litigation MO.

dadsma

PE quickly followed up the POPLA decision with this Letter Before County Court Claim, adding a further £25. 

KeithP

The first few lines of the second post of the NEWBIES thread offer good guidance on how to react upon receipt of a Letter of Claim.

Coupon-mad

And there's specific advice re ParkingEye.

Complain again to Barnet hospital.

Get your MP to write to ParkingEye and the hospital.  MPs will support constituents v unfair parking charges.

dadsma

We are preparing both complaints. 

The simple facts are that after dropping off a visitor the driver queued to park but no spaces became available so they left.

Here is the full text of the unsuccessful Popla decision. Is it in any way reasonable that the adjudicator says “A motorist who uses a private car park to drop off a passenger is considered to have been parked”. How can stopping for a few seconds in the drop off area be considered to be parked?

“Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant submitted a PDF file and raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: 

• They are the registered keeper of the vehicle and the PCN does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the information is not on the front page of the PCN. 

• The driver was unable to park because the car park was very busy, and no spaces were available, so they left. 

• There is no proof that the driver parked as they dropped off a passenger to visit a patient who had suffered a heart attack. 

• The driver subsequently picked up the passenger outside of the hospital grounds. 

• They state the drop off area allows 20 minutes to pick up and drop off passengers. 

• The parking operator did not request any further evidence from them as the rejection letter claims. 

• In the Parking Eye v Mrs B court ruling, the judge concluded that the signs only refer to ‘parking’ and does not explain that the time starts after passing the ANPR cameras. 

• There is no evidence of Landowner Authority. 

• They refer to a decision issued by POPLA in 2016. 

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal stating the parking operator’s evidence does not address their specific points of appeal. 

They maintain that the driver could not park and the ANPR images show the vehicle entering and exiting. They reiterate that the PCN does not comply with PoFA 2012.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. 

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. 

PoFA 2012 is the law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver is not identified. For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9.2, it needs to state that if the details of the driver during the time of the contravention are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is liable for the unpaid parking charge. It must also have been issued to the keeper within the relevant time period. 

There is nothing within PoFA 2012 that states the information described above must be contained on the first page of the notice. As all the information was contained within the PCN and sent to the appellant, I am satisfied the parking operator has successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper. 

I appreciate the appellant states the vehicle was not parked. I note they confirm in their appeal that the driver stopped to drop off a passenger. A motorist who uses a private car park to drop off a passenger is considered to have been parked. This is because they have gained utility from the car park to enable them to do so, meaning the driver became subject to the terms and conditions, which apply to all motorists that enter the car park. 

The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who do not make a valid payment for their duration of stay before exiting the car park. 

The vehicle was captured on site for 23 minutes without a valid payment. I note the appellant has raised that there is a 20-minute drop off area. However, the ANPR technology demonstrates that the appellant was within the patient and visitor car park A. There are no signs within this area that confirm there is a 20-minute drop off area and therefore this makes no material difference to the outcome of this appeal. 

I acknowledge that the appellant raised that the parking operator did not request any additional evidence from them before rejecting the appeal.  POPLA’s remit does not have any authority over the parking operator’s internal processes. 

If the appellant wishes to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they will need to follow the parking operator’s complaints process found on its website. 

The appellant states that in the Parking Eye v Mrs B court ruling, the judge concluded that the signs only refer to ‘parking’ and does not explain that the time starts after passing the ANPR cameras. I must explain that this was a county court judgement and therefore it does not set a precedent. The judge’s comment was also made after the ruling and did not form part of the judgement itself. 

I am satisfied the appellant has confirmed that the driver used the car park to drop off a passenger and the ANPR images show the appellant entered and remained in a specific area of the hospital. The duration of stay is from the point of entry to the point of exit, captured by the ANPR technology. 

No valid payment was made to cover any of the time the vehicle spent on site. I am satisfied this comment does not impact the outcome of this case. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case, the parking operator provided a confirmation of authority signed in 2021 to confirm that the parking operator still has the relevant authority to operate on the car park. There is nothing to suggest this contract is no longer valid. If the appellant still disputes the validity of this contract, they may wish to seek independent legal advice, as this falls outside of POPLA’s scope for investigation. 

POPLA’s role is to consider whether a parking contract was formed, and whether the motorist complied to the terms and conditions of the parking contract. 

I cannot take into consideration any successful outcomes for previous appeals as this does not dispute the validity of the PCN issued. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.”

dadsma

Please could I have your comments and observations on the following.

I now have a copy of the Trust’s parking contract with Parking Eye and despite heavy redactions there is sufficient information that it looks like it blatantly contravenes the Department of Health NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles.

The parking contract says:

”SCHEDULE 1 - Services 
Parking Eye will provide car park management services to include, but not limited to 

1 ANPR/P&D Linked System (with pay by phone service)”
2. Permit System
3.DVLA searches
4.Automatic Parking Charge generation letter services (and any further action).
5.Call centre and cash collection for Parking Charges/processing services.
6.Full and transparent data and reporting from the ParkingEye systems presented via the ParkingEye website.
7.installation, commission and maintenance throughout the period of the contract of the ParkingEye System
8.Full signage 
Additional services are excluded.

SCHEDULE 2
With the exception of the Additional Services, ParkingEye supplies all thr Services listed within Schedule 1, free of charge,
in return for the following revenues:

1. The charges issued to motorists who stay over the Paid Parking limits, or who are not registered to park as a Permit Holder.
(the “Parking Charges”) are: £100 reduced to £60, if paid within 14 days.

2. Any £10 fee, incurred by the Customer (in) accordance with Clause 10.1, for cancellation (of) more Parking Charges than the agreed percentage, subject to Clause 10.2”


So it seems that Parking Eye’s only income stream from the contract is from pcn’s for motorists alleged beaches plus £10 a time from hospital ordered cancellations above an undisclosed number.

That is blatantly at odds with The DoH NHS parking principles which the trust should be following:

”Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

“NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf”

”NHS trusts should publish their implementation of the NHS car parking principles.”

Unsurprisingly I have been unable to find any Trust documentation online to show their implementation of the principle in these regards.

dadsma

KeithP said:

The first few lines of the second post of the NEWBIES thread offer good guidance on how to react upon receipt of a Letter of Claim.

Coupon-mad said:

And there's specific advice re ParkingEye.

The “NEWBIES” thread advises If you get a LBCCC direct from ParkingEye………….they'll accept you naming the driver & postal address (and should reissue the PCN and start again with the driver being allowed to appeal).

Does that still apply after a lost POPLA appeal by the keeper and where the driver is the same person as the keeper?  Are they different people from a legal standpoint?

Gr1pr

No, ONLY if they are 2 different people can it apply 

They are different entities, but have to be different people, a keeper cannot name the driver, they can only admit to being the driver