PCN - Select Parking Ltd

Grizebeck

No
All you need is lack of keeper liability 
That has absolutely nothing to do with keeper liability at all

I already advised a while back on what will win this.

Coupon-mad

Grizebeck said:

No
All you need is lack of keeper liability 
That has absolutely nothing to do with keeper liability at all

I already advised a while back on what will win this.

I agree.

But I haven't bothered to update the POPLA advice for years - and won't be doing so, for obvious reasons. No point!

1505grandad

Opening post:-

"So received this PCN the other day for an incident about 3 months ago. Went to pick up the other half from the train station, wasn’t sure what time she would get there so parked up opposite in the industrial estate area in the evening for 10-15mins from memory, then drove to the pickup point and picked her up. She is the registered keeper of the car, ..."

A more recent post:-

"Thank you CM, I presume I delete ‘genuine resident’ as it is an industrial estate. I will edit that in the draft above." 

Just checking  -  is everything being done in the RK's name i.e. your wife?

Couldey

1505grandad said:

Opening post:-

"So received this PCN the other day for an incident about 3 months ago. Went to pick up the other half from the train station, wasn’t sure what time she would get there so parked up opposite in the industrial estate area in the evening for 10-15mins from memory, then drove to the pickup point and picked her up. She is the registered keeper of the car, ..."

A more recent post:-

"Thank you CM, I presume I delete ‘genuine resident’ as it is an industrial estate. I will edit that in the draft above." 

Just checking  -  is everything being done in the RK's name i.e. your wife?

Yes that’s correct, I went onto the parkdubbo.com site, did the appeal as ‘Registered Keeper’ at the first stage.

Presume I was incorrect when CM highlight: Of course you must personalise it to remove whichever of these is inapplicable:

"such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions"

I have edited that. 

Im just getting confused on finding a decent ‘No keeper liability’ template on here as per grizebecks advice: “No

All you need is lack of keeper liability 
That has absolutely nothing to do with keeper liability at all”

So both the drafts are irrelevant?

Grizebeck

Yes as they don't show lack of keeper liability 
There are plenty of examples on here.
Even though is new to you I don't know your mixing up landowner authority and keeper liability 

It's a one point appeal to win this. 

Couldey

Ok so I have been picking up templates from the Newbies thread, but obviously getting wayward with reading too much into it. How’s the below to go off to Popla:

“Dear POPLA,

On the 19th August 2024, Select Parking Ltd issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had breached the terms and conditions of parking at the location noted. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post and received on the 30th August 2024.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met as stated in schedule 4, paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. 

Select Parking Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline: 

’’The notice must be given by— 

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) as the Parking Charge Notice was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”

The Parking Charge Notice sent to me as Registered Keeper was issued on 19th August 2024. This is 86 days after the alleged event and is therefore outside the 'relevant period' of 14 days.

Please see the attached file from Select Parking Ltd with the ‘Contravention date’ of 25-May-2024 and the issue date of 19-Aug- (i.e., nearly three months later!)

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice To Keeper. 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'Notice To Keeper' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with Select Parking Ltd to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: 

Understanding keeper liability

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

Yours sincerely”

Coupon-mad

Why has that been copied without editing it to suit? "Smart Parking Ltd"?

Couldey

The original PCN is from Select Parking Ltd as per the first post?

edit - damn just noticed CM!! I have amended the above draft.

Couldey

Good morning everyone, I'm going to submit the below to POPLA later today, which I presume should be fine as No Keeper Liability? I will also attached the first letter received from Select Parking Ltd to the appeal. Any objections or improvements to the below are welcome

“Dear POPLA,

On the 19th August 2024, Select Parking Ltd issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had breached the terms and conditions of parking at the location noted. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post and received on the 30th August 2024.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met as stated in schedule 4, paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. 

Select Parking Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline: 

’’The notice must be given by— 

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) as the Parking Charge Notice was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”

The Parking Charge Notice sent to me as Registered Keeper was issued on 19th August 2024. This is 86 days after the alleged event and is therefore outside the 'relevant period' of 14 days.

Please see the attached file from Select Parking Ltd with the ‘Contravention date’ of 25-May-2024 and the issue date of 19-Aug- (i.e., nearly three months later!)

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice To Keeper. 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'Notice To Keeper' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with Select Parking Ltd to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: 

Understanding keeper liability

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

Yours sincerely”

Grizebeck

That will do