Azure Parking tickets for stopping a few mins in car park

Grizebeck

Appeal on keeper liability only, otherwise it may get lost amongst everything
its all you need, remove everything else, it simply isnt needed

Umkomaas

Read my comments in the following thread and craft that point into the keeper liability paragraphs. 'No Parking' cannot be contractual, it offers the motorist nothing.  The charge is therefore a penalty, which cannot be levied by a private parking company. See how POPLA respond to that.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6557940/pps-private-parking-solutions-bowman-sheriff-bath-st-nottingham-ng1-1bz/p2

Danny30

Umkomaas said:

Read my comments in the following thread and craft that point into the keeper liability paragraphs. 'No Parking' cannot be contractual, it offers the motorist nothing.  The charge is therefore a penalty, which cannot be levied by a private parking company. See how POPLA respond to that.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6557940/pps-private-parking-solutions-bowman-sheriff-bath-st-nottingham-ng1-1bz/p2

Thank you. So I should add something like this from your previous thread in the keeper liability section:

"the signage displayed at the car park in question which states 'No Parking" offers the driver nothing and cannot possibly form a contract (for the driver to breach). The charge can only therefore be a penalty which only an authority such as a local council or the police can issue" . 

Grizebeck

No
To many popla appeals have the kitchen sink thrown in
Non pofa is the winning point 
Make it the only point so it's front and centre. Its the best way of dealing with popla stuff now. I have never agreed with all the added extras
I know non pofa argument will win this. Don't dilute it.

Coupon-mad

Grizebeck said:

No
To many popla appeals have the kitchen sink thrown in
Non pofa is the winning point 
Make it the only point so it's front and centre. Its the best way of dealing with popla stuff now. I have never agreed with all the added extras
I know non pofa argument will win this. Don't dilute it.

I'm not convinced it will any more.

Now I only read the farcical new 'joint BPA/IPC CoP twice because I've better things to do but I think somewhere in it, they now say that a keeper can be assumed to be the driver.  It's not true (as we know) and I can't recall the form of words in the CoP but whatever it is, POPLA will be bound by it.

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Grizebeck said:

No
To many popla appeals have the kitchen sink thrown in
Non pofa is the winning point 
Make it the only point so it's front and centre. Its the best way of dealing with popla stuff now. I have never agreed with all the added extras
I know non pofa argument will win this. Don't dilute it.

I'm not convinced it will any more.

Now I only read the farcical new 'joint BPA/IPC CoP twice because I've better things to do but I think somewhere in it, they now say that a keeper can be assumed to be the driver.  It's not true (as we know) and I can't recall the form of words in the CoP but whatever it is, POPLA will be bound by it.

So the golden ticket argument is no longer applicable technically and can be rejected? 

Coupon-mad

Don't know.  It hasn't been tested and that's not what I said.

I presume you've gone and read the farcical joint Code by now and found the words that I recall have been sneakily added somewhere?

I don't know where it was (sorry, you'll have to read it, clause by clause, pretty carefully to find what I mean) and I'm certainly not reading it again!  That was an hour of my life I'll never get back...

  

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Don't know.  It hasn't been tested and that's not what I said.

I presume you've gone and read the farcical joint Code by now and found the words that I recall have been sneakily added somewhere?

I don't know where it was (sorry, you'll have to read it, clause by clause, pretty carefully to find what I mean) and I'm certainly not reading it again!  That was an hour of my life I'll never get back...

  

@Coupon-mad Yes, it says this. 

NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.

It then says the following :

Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provides a mechanism in

England and Wales for recovering an unpaid parking charge where the driver’s details are

not known and the conditions within the Act are met. If the conditions of the Act have been

met, liability for the unpaid parking charge may be applied as noted in

Coupon-mad

That's it.  I recall that lie.  They should be ashamed about stating something completely untrue, but they won't be.

We need to test this at POPLA by making them decide whether - according to POPLA - the law (POFA schedule 4) trumps the Code.

Although it isn't an ombudsman, POPLA is run by Ombudsman Services so this could be interesting.  We need to embarrass them by writing something clever.

But this is why NOT to try only this single point at POPLA any more until we've tested their stance in light of the fake Code of Practice, which is littered with self-serving falsehoods and sneaky wording that (to the uninitiated) looks a bit like the stalled DLUHC Code

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

That's it.  I recall that lie.  They should be ashamed about stating something completely untrue, but they won't be.

We need to test this at POPLA by making them decide whether - according to POPLA - the law (POFA schedule 4) trumps the Code.

Although it isn't an ombudsman, POPLA is run by Ombudsman Services so this could be interesting.  We need to embarrass them by writing something clever.

But this is why NOT to try only this single point at POPLA any more until we've tested their stance in light of the fake Code of Practice, which is littered with self-serving falsehoods and sneaky wording that (to the uninitiated) looks a bit like the stalled DLUHC Code

I can see the new code was implemented on October 1st 2024, which is after the issue date of the NTK I received so I assume this new code of practice wouldn't be applicable anyway?