Appeal rejected by LDK (no notice on windshield)

ezio1

LDK have replied to the appeal with the summary. 

1. We wish to oppose the appeal on the following grounds: • The vehicle remained on site without making payment for parking. • This is a breach of the Terms and Conditions of using the site and consequently a breach of Contract. • The signage on Site clearly specifies the full Terms and Conditions of use of which it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to. • The signage is approved by the British Parking Association and is sufficient in notifying all users of the Terms and Conditions of parking on this private land. • Whilst the circumstances of the Appellant’s appeal have been considered, these do not exempt them from the relevant applicable Terms and Conditions specifically the requirement to pay for parking. • The keepers appeal was a template and did not provide any reason as to why they did not pay to park on this date. • The keeper was on site from 18:32 to 18:39 with no payment. • The sigange on site is approved by the British Parking Association and is sufficient in notifying motorists that they must pay to park. • The keeper has another Parking Charge for this site issued 20 June 2024. Their appeal was rejected 05/07/2024. • The Parking Charge has been issued correctly as no payment was made to park


Note on one of the points when they mention 5/7/2024, they are referring to an appeal charge on my car that a family member dealt with when she was driving, she did not even take it to POPLA and foolishly paid out of fear. This current notice was received immediately after and the contravention date was before 5/7/24 so has no bearing.

Their non summarised reply is riddled with inaccuracies and untruths, for example, omitted the fact that zzpz balifs had sent me a letter and the dates in which the appeals were made.

Also note the contravention time was 7 minutes, 2 minutes more than the 'allowance' nor is there any evidence of the signage in the dark, my point also states that it was not well lit. Moreover, they mentioned a template response (even though most of it I wrote). Whereas their response is entirely templated. Proven by the fact they mentioned the fine was £60 (it was actually £45) and went up to £90..

I will share my response in due course

Thorndorise

Love the approach you're taking, kudos to the attention to detail.

Just as an aside, an observation if you will that may be well known to the more wisened folks on here, the addresses match...

LDK's NtK was based from Bacchus House, Addlestone. I note that the company address at the bottom is at a Lok'n'store (swish)  in Brinklow. On top of that the screen grab you've shared above has a third address in Leighton Buzzard!!

But then, ZZPS' address is also at Bacchus House, Addlestone. But then their companies address is Covent Garden (swisher).

This is probably how it was incorrectly passed to ZZPS so quickly,  when 'Rita' lent back in her chair and passed it to 'Sue'....Bob watched.

Coupon-mad

That was a truly awful 'film', @Thorndorise - childishly written rubbish and badly acted!

But hey, back on topic:

The OP should respond with everything they said EXCEPT THIS:

"Also note the contravention time was 7 minutes, 2 minutes more than the 'allowance"' 

ezio1

ZZPS and LDK (I dont even know which is which now) responded in a longer letter which i won't bore you with, but below is their summary and my response.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

Summary response from ZZPS 

We wish to oppose the appeal on the following grounds: • The vehicle remained on site without making payment for parking. • This is a breach of the Terms and Conditions of using the site and consequently a breach of Contract. • The signage on Site clearly specifies the full Terms and Conditions of use of which it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to. • The signage is approved by the British Parking Association and is sufficient in notifying all users of the Terms and Conditions of parking on this private land. • Whilst the circumstances of the Appellant’s appeal have been considered, these do not exempt them from the relevant applicable Terms and Conditions specifically the requirement to pay for parking. • The keepers appeal was a template and did not provide any reason as to why they did not pay to park on this date. • The keeper was on site from 18:32 to 18:39 with no payment. • The sigange on site is approved by the British Parking Association and is sufficient in notifying motorists that they must pay to park. • The keeper has another Parking Charge for this site issued 20 June 2024. Their appeal was rejected 05/07/2024. • The Parking Charge has been issued correctly as no payment was made to park.

 

My response

I find it ironic that ZZPS would state that my appeal is a ‘template’ (which it is not) when quite clearly, bar some minor (and incorrect) additions to the response by ZZPS, it is entirely templated. This is observably evident but solidified by the point that states “32.The Registered Keeper was also offered the alternative to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate of £60.00 if paid within fourteen days from issue.” It was indeed a £45 reduced rate, so this is an inaccuracy.

This is again, indicative to the lack of administrative procedures within LDK Security Group and ZZPS whereby they are not even aware of a simple reduced rate they had offered.

Secondly, the previous parking charge issued on 20th June 2024 was entirely irrelevant to this current parking charge that had a contravention date of 25th February 2024. It is an assumption on the part of ZZPS that the contravention had taken place after an appeal was rejected. This is factually incorrect and again, indicative of the extremely poor administrative procedures of ZZPS and LDK Security Group. As stated previously, the parking charge issued on 20th June 2024 had began and concluded well before a notice had even been issued regarding a contravention date on 25th February 2024.

Note, the parking charge issued on 20th June 2024 was reluctantly paid due to the exploitative and threatening tactics of LDK Security Group. Recognising my own naivety, I came to understand this is a consistent tactic employed to exploit the most vulnerable and those who are unaware of statutory policies and code of practices.

Moreover, the response had conveniently left out the fact that the appeal had been referred to bailiffs BEFORE an appeal to POPLA had been made, which is entirely against BPA Code of Practice. Note the points in the response  

“39. Subsequently a formal rejection letter was sent to the Appellant on 19/08/2024 advising the Appellant of the grounds for the rejection and requesting they contact us to settle the matter. 40. The above has resulted in the Appellant making this application to POPLA.” 

The case being referred to a debt recovery agency had been purposefully missed out and not addressed from my original appeal to POPLA. Again, indicative to the untruth tactics deployed by LDK Security Group.

Regarding the points that were not addressed in my original POPLA appeal. They include:

1.     No adequate indication of the driver, the response states “The keeper was on site from 18:32 to 18:39 with no payment”. Is there any evidence of the keeper was in fact the driver? This in turn makes the statement entirely false and presumptuous.

2.     The signage was in relation to the fact it had blended into the background as evidenced and the signage lighting had not been considered in the response – the response did not evidence or address this specifically.

3.     Admission that LDK Security Group did not use POFA 2012 to pursue the charge but chose to cite it in the response. “25. When a vehicle is parked in a private car park, the normal rule is that the driver is responsible for paying the tariff fee (if any) for parking, and/or for following the terms and conditions which apply, and for paying any parking charges. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 creates the new legal basis to claim unpaid parking charges from vehicle keepers and hirers. As long as the strict conditions of Schedule 4 are met, an Operator may claim payment from the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle rather than from the driver.”

4.     The significant delay in issuing the PCN.

5.     BPA Code of Practice breach not addressed and entirely omitted.

6.     No evidence of landowner authority.

The response failed to adequately address any of the issues raised in the original POPLA complaint and is riddled with inaccuracies, untruths and purposeful omissions.

Coupon-mad

That's far far too long if that is merely your comments on POPLA evidence. Too emotive and this isn't true (no bailiffs were involved):

"the appeal had been referred to bailiffs BEFORE an appeal to POPLA"

ezio1

Coupon-mad said:

That's far far too long if that is merely your comments on POPLA evidence. Too emotive and this isn't true (no bailiffs were involved):

"the appeal had been referred to bailiffs BEFORE an appeal to POPLA"

I meant debt agency* I'll certainly reduce it.

Are there any points that scream out for me to keep? I'll delete the rest. 

Coupon-mad

Your numbered points 1-6 are good and are all you need ... but don't say this:

"Regarding the points that were not addressed in my original POPLA appeal"

You realise how that sounds?!  That says "here are six points I didn't address in my appeal"!

ezio1

Coupon-mad said:

Your numbered points 1-6 are good and are all you need ... but don't say this:

"Regarding the points that were not addressed in my original POPLA appeal"

You realise how that sounds?!  That says "here are six points I didn't address in my appeal"!

Oh wow, yes, understood 

I'll remove everything except the 6 points. I just thought I had to address the points LDK made and find inconsistencies 

Coupon-mad

Yes but none of that wins the appeal. The fact it is a non-POFA PCN wins the case.

Lead the POPLA Assessor to water and make them drink!

ezio1

And, we WON the decision. Moral of the story, don't let the scammers deter you and follow the leaders on the thread. I tip my hat to you all. @Coupon-mad, @LDast, @Thorndorise and other legends. 

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided. I note the appellant has not confirmed they were driving the vehicle and has provided no driver details to either us or the parking operator. As such, I need to establish if the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. For the operator to transfer liability for an unpaid parking charge from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA must be adhered to. I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 25th February 2024, and the PCN was issued on 4th July 2024, far outside the 14 days specified in PoFA. As no driver liability has been established and the PCN was not issued within the required 14 day period, the operator cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. As the operator has failed to comply with PoFA, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.