Parking fine- driver left site

Jimpossible

Registered keeper has received a parking charge letter that a driver of their vehicle was observed leaving site by Total Parking Solutions.

First option is to appeal (14 day bribe window) and ask them to prove with evidence. Included is images of the letter and the photos they uploaded to the portal. No direct evidence of the driver of the vehicle leaving site. Could I get some advice on my appeal, anything to add or remove please? Thank you.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As the registered keeper of the below vehicle, I wish to appeal parking charge issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention - No evidence that the driver ‘left the site’

No evidence that the driver ‘left the site’.

The notice to keeper states that the reason for issuing the charge notice is: “Driver left site designated for customer parking only.” 
No evidence has been provided from TPS showing the vehicle driver leaving the site and I require TPS to provide this. Such evidence should include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left. The burden of proof shifts to TPS to prove otherwise and to explain why their attendant (presumably):

1.Watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary,

2. Did not attempt to stop/warn the driver nor even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises.

The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 District Judge McIlwaine stated:
‘you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?....there is a duty to mitigate the loss.’

I contend that TPS have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

[url=https://imgchest.com/p/n87wrwx3qyx][img]https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/my8xcb5jav4.JPG[/img][/url]<br><img alt="" src="https://ibb.co/51BWMkY.jpg"><br><img alt="" src="https://ibb.co/jbjNqd7.jpg"><span>[url=https://imgchest.com/p/n87wrwx3qyx][img]https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/345xcl2rag7.JPG[/img][/url]<br></span><br><span>[url=https://imgchest.com/p/n87wrwx3qyx][img]https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/84apcjpe9n4.png[/img][/url]<br></span><br><img alt="" src="https://ibb.co/kDgDm1F.jpg"><span>[url=https://imgchest.com/p/n87wrwx3qyx][img]https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/k46acjp2lk7.png[/img][/url]</span>

Jimpossible

Images posted here.

fisherjim

Just send the 1st appeal from the newbies thread they will ignore that there's no money to be made in cancelling from a  first appeal, they will just reiterate the signage on site says bla bla bla.

They won't take it any further no one has since the case you mention anyway.

It isn't a fine either, it's just an invoice.

Grizebeck

Easy to win at popla to just deny leaving site

LDast

Whatever appeal you send will be rejected. You can then point out to POPLA that their NtK fails the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a as the evidential photos on the NtK have been altered by cropping as there is no date/timestamp on the images. It doesn’t matter if the file images on their website have the timestamp.

Quote the following successful POPLA appeal that was won on the failure to comply with BPA CoP section 21.5a

POPLA code: 2413353469

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: The signage is inadequate • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements. • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver. • No landowner authority • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA). • No evidence of the period parked. • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: 

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.

Obviously, you also include the ridiculousness about no evidence of the alleged breach of contract by the driver and you can also include no keeper liability as the NtK fails PoFA  9(2)(e)(ii) as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge.

You'll get the satisfaction for knowing it cost the vermin £30 to pay for the POPLA assessment whether successful or not. They would be showing signs of suicidal tendencies if they ever let this in front of a judge.

Jimpossible

Thanks for the replies

fisherjim said:

Just send the 1st appeal from the newbies thread they will ignore that there's no money to be made in cancelling from a  first appeal, they will just reiterate the signage on site says bla bla bla.

They won't take it any further no one has since the case you mention anyway.

It isn't a fine either, it's just an invoice.

Ok I sent the first newbies thread appeal and will use one in OP with additions to POPLA along with other advice ITT

Grizebeck said:

Easy to win at popla to just deny leaving site

If they provide evidence I guess that changes things? Like a video clip.

LDast said:

Whatever appeal you send will be rejected. You can then point out to POPLA that their NtK fails the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a as the evidential photos on the NtK have been altered by cropping as there is no date/timestamp on the images. It doesn’t matter if the file images on their website have the timestamp.

Quote the following successful POPLA appeal that was won on the failure to comply with BPA CoP section 21.5a

POPLA code: 2413353469

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: The signage is inadequate • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements. • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver. • No landowner authority • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA). • No evidence of the period parked. • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: 

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.

Obviously, you also include the ridiculousness about no evidence of the alleged breach of contract by the driver and you can also include no keeper liability as the NtK fails PoFA  9(2)(e)(ii) as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge.

You'll get the satisfaction for knowing it cost the vermin £30 to pay for the POPLA assessment whether successful or not. They would be showing signs of suicidal tendencies if they ever let this in front of a judge.

Thanks will update thread when it gets to the POPLA stage.

Grizebeck

there wont be a video clip
You simply appeal like this to popla
The driver did not leave site, there is no evidence of this, the claimants is put to strict proof with photos etc, notes wont do.

fisherjim

You are over thinking this you are dealing with greedy scammers they have devised this add on scam to pick low hanging fruit that falls for anything, they will huff and puff don't fall for it.

Coupon-mad

Jimpossible said:

Thanks for the replies

fisherjim said:

Just send the 1st appeal from the newbies thread they will ignore that there's no money to be made in cancelling from a  first appeal, they will just reiterate the signage on site says bla bla bla.

They won't take it any further no one has since the case you mention anyway.

It isn't a fine either, it's just an invoice.

Ok I sent the first newbies thread appeal and will use one in OP with additions to POPLA along with other advice ITT

Grizebeck said:

Easy to win at popla to just deny leaving site

If they provide evidence I guess that changes things? Like a video clip.

LDast said:

Whatever appeal you send will be rejected. You can then point out to POPLA that their NtK fails the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a as the evidential photos on the NtK have been altered by cropping as there is no date/timestamp on the images. It doesn’t matter if the file images on their website have the timestamp.

Quote the following successful POPLA appeal that was won on the failure to comply with BPA CoP section 21.5a

POPLA code: 2413353469

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: The signage is inadequate • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements. • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver. • No landowner authority • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA). • No evidence of the period parked. • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: 

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.

Obviously, you also include the ridiculousness about no evidence of the alleged breach of contract by the driver and you can also include no keeper liability as the NtK fails PoFA  9(2)(e)(ii) as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge.

You'll get the satisfaction for knowing it cost the vermin £30 to pay for the POPLA assessment whether successful or not. They would be showing signs of suicidal tendencies if they ever let this in front of a judge.

Thanks will update thread when it gets to the POPLA stage.

Please update this thread and your PCM one as well.

Jimpossible

Made my POPLA appeal. TPS replied today refused it again with the following reply. POPLA are inviting me to comment on their reply. No video evidence, just a description of what the alleged driver was wearing. Please advise on what I should comment on:

The driver was observed leaving site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises

The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site. The onus is with the driver to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions. Your vehicle was logged by patrol officer as the driver was observed leaving site whilst the vehicle remained on the premises which breaches the Terms and Conditions of this site.

The signage within this car park stipulates “customer parking only”, “3 hours maximum stay”, “do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park”, “failure to comply may result in a parking charge of £100”, and “by entering and remaining on this private land you are required to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions”. Please find in evidence copies of the signage notice boards displayed at this location and the signage map for ease of reference.

We note the appellant has submitted an appeal to POPLA that appears to be a vague template and giving no mitigating reasons for the breach of Terms and Conditions, we are limited with what we are able to respond. In addition to this, we note the template used relates to a different version of the current BPA Code of Practice, mentioning sections and points that do not correspond with the current BPA Code of Practice that was implemented in 2023. Therefore, it is difficult to address the points in relation to the current BPA Code of Practice as we are unsure what version the appellant is referring to.

The appellant has referenced a court case VCS v Ibbotson in their appeal in support of the contravention. Whilst we note the contraventions of the Parking Charges are similar, the Judgment was not in relation to the contravention of the Parking Charge but rather the legal authority from the landowner of the car park for VCS to enforce the car park. As such, this case has no relevance to this Parking Charge which will be discussed further below in section 4.

TPS are fully aware that the appellant letter of the remaining points in their appeal is a standard text, with no relation to any specific circumstances which might have represented valid mitigation against the issue of this Parking Charge. We are not obliged to answer it point by point, and we cannot accept it in place of a genuine appeal. We hope that POPLA views this appeal for what it is. Nothing more than misleading, misrepresenting and evidence fabrication. All our documents, Parking Charge amounts and signage have been approved by the BPA and full comply with their Version 9 Code of Practice which was applicable when this Parking Charge was issued.

1. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

The appellant has advised that TPS has not provided any photographic evidence of the contravention, a site map or signage pictures. The appellant has also raised concerns regarding the Parking Attendant not attempting to stop or warn drivers from breaching the Terms and Conditions set within this car park / mitigating loss.

We note the appellant has claimed that the Parking Attendant has a legal duty to mitigate loss, quoting the court case VCS v Ibbotson. As stated before, the Judgment for this case was

 

not in relation to the contravention of the Parking Charge but rather the legal authority from the landowner of the car park for VCS to enforce the car park.

Please find in evidence copies of the signage notice boards displayed within this car park and the signage map. Kindly be advised the signage within this car park is ample and approved by the BPA, meeting the requirements in full under Version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. The onus is on the driver to ensure that they adhere to all the Terms and Conditions stipulated on the signage notice boards when choosing to remain parked on the premises / forming a contract. It is not the Parking Attendants responsibility to inform motorists that they may be breaching the Terms and Conditions of the car park or to make any kind of stop to the actions of the users of this car park.

Car Parking Operators do not legally have to capture candid pictures or video evidence of drivers leaving site. Under the BPA Code of Practice Version 9 and the DVLA, a witness statement provided by the Parking Attendant on the day and capturing photographic evidence of the vehicle remaining parked on the land for longer than 10 minutes indicates that the driver has accepted and agreed to all of the Terms and Conditions presented on the signage at the location including accepting responsibility to ensure they do not leave the premises whilst the vehicle remains parked.

Please find in evidence a copy of the photographic evidence obtained by the Parking Attendant on the date in question. The Parking Attendant started their observation at 14:00:16 on the 09.08.2024 when they witnessed the driver leave the premises. The Parking Attendant issued the Parking Charge at 14:12:10 on the 09.08.2024 after the appropriate consideration period was applied and the driver still had not returned to the car park.

The BPA recommends witness statements to include where applicable, a description of the driver, the direction they travelled towards and / or any additional information. In this case, the Parking Attendant provided the following statement “driver was observed walking off site wearing black pants and wine shirt”. We note the statement does not include every aspect of the BPA’s recommendations; however, the BPA recommends at least one aspect to be covered under the Code of Practice.

We note the appellant has not provided any evidence to POPLA to confirm that they or the driver of the vehicle was a customer of the retail park on the day either. As per the signage notice boards displayed within this car park, this location is strictly for customers of the retail park.

2. No site boundary defined

The appellant raises concerns in this section relating to the site boundary and how the driver or any motorists would not know that they have potentially left the premises of this car park. The appellant questions whether the driver was on the premises at all and what constitutes as leaving the premises.

Kindly see the document titled “Site Boundary Screenshots from Google Maps” in evidence that shows the entire retail park car park is surrounded by a fence. This fence acts as a boundary line or physical representation to indicate to all users of this car park that stores

located within the fenced area belong to the retail park. It is clearly defined and when leaving the fenced area of this car park by foot whilst the vehicle remains parked in this car park, the Terms and Conditions of this car park has been breached.

The appellant states “it has not been established whether the driver was on site all along”. The photographic evidence captured by the Parking Attendant on the date and time in question provides proof that the vehicle was parked on this premises. Whether the registered keeper drove the vehicle or the unidentified named driver, the vehicle was parked on the premises suggesting the vehicles driver would’ve been on the site on the date and time in question.

This car park is strictly for customers of the retail park. We note the appellant has not provided any evidence to POPLA or to TPS in relation to proving the driver was a customer of this retail park on the date and time in question.

TPS believe the site boundary of this car park is clearly defined and the onus is on the driver to ensure that they comply with all the Terms and Conditions of this car park when choosing to remain parked on the premises and forming a contract with TPS. As the registered keeper has not provided the driver’s full name and full serviceable address, they have accepted liability of this Parking Charge under POFA 2012 regulations as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. No Keeper liability

The Parking Charge was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle on the 16.08.2024, within 14 days of the contravention date (09.08.2024). As such, TPS are satisfied that this Parking Charge / Notice to Keeper has been issued in full compliance with schedule 4, POFA 2012. The registered keeper of the vehicle appealed to TPS on the 27.08.2024. As per the Notice to Keeper dated 16.08.2024, this Parking Charge was issued using POFA 2012 regulations.

In this Notice to Keeper letter, it invites the registered keeper, held by the DVLA at the time of contravention, that if they were not the driver of the vehicle on the date and time in question, to provide the driver’s full name and full address. This Notice to Keeper also informs the keeper that should the driver’s details not be provided, under POFA 2012, TPS have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. See Notice to Keeper Parking Charge letter in evidence and below screenshot for ease of reference.

TPS have no record to date of the registered keeper providing the driver’s full name and full serviceable address. As such, they have accepted liability of this Parking Charge under POFA 2012 regulations as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

 

4. No landowner authority

The appellant has raised concerns regarding the credibility of the landowner agreement in this section. Please find in evidence a redacted countersigned copy, due to GDPR, of the authority to act and the contract between the landowner and Total Parking Solutions granting TPS the authority to enforce this car park. This contract fully complies with Version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The signage notice boards displayed within this car park clearly sets out when the car park is being monitored; “Controlled parking area. This car park area is monitored 24 hours a day. Please be aware that you may receive a Parking Charge Notice for breach of any Terms and

Conditions of use. The conditions of use apply to all users”. TPS are not obligated to provide a full unredacted contract or authority to act between the landowner and TPS as this falls within the remit of commercial data and has no relevance to the contract formed between the driver of the vehicle and TPS on the date and time in question.

The appellant has referred to a POPLA case in this section. We are unable to comment of other Car Parking Operators cases or cases that do not relate to the Parking Charge in question. However, there is no legal obligation nor section in the current BPA Code of Practice that deems an unredacted full contract is provided to POPLA. As this is commercial data that also contains personal data of our Client, due to date protection laws / GDPR, unredacted document copies cannot be discounted or deemed ‘not valid evidence’.

The signage informs all users of this car park of the Terms and Conditions of use that apply to all users. As such, all users of this car park must adhere to all of the Terms and Conditions when choosing to remain parked on this private land (see copies of the full Terms and Conditions signage boards provided in evidence). These signs are compliant with the current BPA Code of Practice 2023 – 2024 section 19.1 and 20.3. Section 19.1 specifically stipulates “a driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you” and 19.2 refers to the vital part entrance signs plays in identifying private land and establishing this contract. The signage plan demonstrates where the p entrance signs area within this car park. By choosing to remain parked on the premises passed the 10 minutes, the driver accepted the contractual obligations to abiding by all of the Terms and Conditions of this car park.

We have provided photographic evidence that by staying at the location, the driver has accepted all of the prevailing Terms and Conditions of the parking contract; including the charges for breach of that contract. There are a number of signs at the parking location, in addition to an entry sign which offers the parking contract to the driver, and sets out the Terms and Conditions of the parking area on which the Operator will rely and on which the driver has agreed to be bound by; these Terms and Conditions clearly show the amount which will become payable if the parking charge is breached.

5. NTK fails BPA Code of Practice section 21.5a

As the appellant has used a vague template, section 21.5a of Version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice which this Parking Charge was issued under, does not refer to NTK’s so it is difficult to comment on this section. Please refer to current BPA Code of Practice section 21.5a below.

Based off the POPLA appeal example raised in this section and the Assessors rational, the Assessor deemed the appeal successful due to the photographic evidence being altered after the parking event as the images were not date and time stamped and referring to the NTK. Unfortunately, we are unable to comment on other cases nor cases relating to other Car Parking Operators.

However, as per the photographic evidence captured by the Parking Attendant on the date and time in question, all images have been date and time stamped as evidenced in the bottom left-hand corner of each image captured (yellow writing). The handheld device the Parking Attendant uses to capture the evidence automatically adds the date and time using the standard Network Time Protocol (NTP) process over an internet-based link to the time signal provided by the National Physical laboratories in the UK, which is the UK’s National Measurement Institution.

The Network Time Protocol, or NTP, is the most widely used method for transmitting time information across the Internet. NTP takes as its time reference the international atomic time scale, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is kept within 0.9 seconds of the astronomical time scale Greenwich Mean Time by the insertion of leap seconds when necessary.

The photographic evidence featured on the Notice to Keeper shows the date and time stamp on each image, provides the reason for contravention and the location the contravention occurred, with additional vital information being included. Please see the Notice to Keeper / Parking Charge in evidence. The BPA has approved all of our letters. As such, we believe that the Parking Charge / Notice to Keeper meets all the requirements of the current BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012. See below current section from Version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice in relation to NTKs.

As such, we believe that the Parking Charge was issued correctly for the contravention of “the driver was observed leaving site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises” as per the photographic evidence captured by the Parking Attendant on the date and time in question and the witness statement provided that meets the requirements of the BPA and DVLA. Whilst we appreciate the appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle and has not declared themselves as the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, as the Parking Charge was issued under POFA 2012 regulations, the registered keeper has been afforded opportunities to name the driver and transfer liability. However, the registered keeper has exercised their rights to not declare the driver on the day, choosing to inherit the responsibility from the driver for this Parking Charge under schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Therefore, we conclude that this Parking Charge was issued correctly.

 

prowla

Is it legal for the parking scammers to film people?