Parking Charge Notice Patcham High School, One Parking Solutions

forummseuser01

Good afternoon forum users, 

So, One Parking Solutions have struck again! 

I was taking my daughter to swimming at Patcham High School. We usually park right next to the school in the 'lower' car park as advised by the swimming club.
On this occasion all the parking spaces in the lower car park were full. I doubled back up the way and parked in a space amongst a row of parking spaces. The parking areas are no more than 30 metres apart and still very much part of the school premises. I did a quick scan and could see no signs. In mitigation It was a quick scan as my daughter was desperate for the loo and was making a real fuss.
To my mind I was still on the school premises and did not consider for one minute that the parking arrangements between the two car parks located so close together would be different.
I returned to the car and noticed the dreaded PCN under the windscreen wiper..... sigh..... Then I noticed the signage up on the wall of an adjacent building behind me.

It is so hard to avoid One Parking Solutions. They are everywhere in Brighton. I am that typical case where a lapse of concentration due to being a somewhat stressed, yet hardworking father has resulted in potentially getting stung by this predatory company. 

I have successfully contested a PCN from this vile company - thanks to the advice and encouragement from the knowledgeable forum users - in the past so I am aware of the process and I am more than prepared to defend myself if there is a reasonable chance my defence will be upheld.

My question is: how likely is a successful defence in the above circumstances? To my mind I had no reason to suspect the parking requirements would be different from one area to the next.

Can anyone kindly advise?

Many thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

It is so hard to avoid One Parking Solution. They are everywhere in Brighton.

Yep.  Absolute pariahs of Sussex IMHO. I'm a Sussex lass and know the High School site.

Put a formal complaint in with Patcham High School and also ask them why they think the car park is 'private land'. Do they own it? No. It's a state school so the premises are surely owned and provided by BHCC.

Actually that's a point.

Show us both sides of this NTK. 

forummseuser01

Here is the NTK.

I have just noticed that it says Patcham Community Centre. However, I was on the school grounds I drove past the entrance sign. 

I have just seen the Community Centre is on the school grounds according to google maps.

ParkingMad

OPS issued 54 PCNs at the Patcham Community Centre car park in 2023. 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_charge_notices_issued_by_14/response/2648890/attach/2/PCNs%20issued%20on%20BHCC%20sites%20by%20OPS%2001.01.23%2031.12.23%202.pdf

LDast

Whilst the OP has unnecessarily redacted the dates on the NtK, it is not PoFA compliant. Unless the OP, the known keeper, has identified the unknown driver, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge.

Coupon-mad

Yep, a non-POFA NTK.

Happy days!  As long as they haven't already appealed saying who was driving, this case is impossible to lose at POPLA.

So, no need to ignore it after all. Easy!

forummseuser01

Hi, this sounds promising. No, there has been no appeal and no reference to who was driving. Please would you explain how the NTK is not POFA compliant? I am not sure I follow.

Coupon-mad

forummseuser01 said:

Here is the NTK.

Hi, this sounds promising. No, there has been no appeal and no reference to who was driving. Please would you explain how the NTK is not POFA compliant? I am not sure I follow.

The NEWBIES thread links you to the POFA schedule 4. You can see that the keeper liability warning in para 8(2)f isn't there. Easy!

Secondly, BHCC are the landowner, so these spaces are owned/provided by an authority.  The land is 'under statutory control' so keeper liability is impossible because such land is excluded from Sch4. 

forummseuser01

Thank you. I am very confused. I have read the requirements under schedule 8 of the PoFA and I cannot, unfortunately, see how the letter is not PoFA compliant? 

I think the relevant para from PoFA 2012 is this:

"8(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

The letter appears to warn the keeper in the final paragraph as follows: 'Failure to pay the full amount of this notice within 28 days of the date  of sending may result in debt recovery action.......' 

Does this meet the requirement of 8(f) ?

The letter states 'the driver has not paid the PCN...' 

Does this meet schedule 8(f)(i)?

The letter does state 'we do not know the name of the driver and a current address....' 

Thus it appears to meet 8 (f) (ii) 

Please would you help me with my lack of understanding?

 

forummseuser01

Further to my last post I can see how the land is excluded from schedule 4 of the Act. That appears much clearer to me. 

KeithP

forummseuser01 said:

Further to my last post I can see how the land is excluded from schedule 4 of the Act. That appears much clearer to me. 

And that's all you need.
Simply because the land is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA Sch4, there is no way that any driver's liability can be transferred to the keeper.