Private Parking Charge Notice LDK and ZZPS

Le_Kirk

Just use the template as it is (assuming you are RK and the vehicle is not leased), it is written to ensure you don't give away the driver.

Coupon-mad

It doesn't matter about the date when the scam charge 'increases'. Completely irrelevant to you.

halo1982

Hi everyone, I appealed incident 2 with LDK as RK, it was refused and I got a POPLA code. 

Now I am preparing a letter to POPLA and based on various samples have put the below together:

[Name]

[Address]

[City, Postal Code]

[Date]

Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)

PO Box 1270

Warrington

WA4 9RL

[Reference/PCN Number]

Dear POPLA,

Re: Appeal for Parking Charge Notice [Reference/PCN Number]

As the registered keeper, I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by [Parking Company Name] on [Date] for the vehicle with registration number [Vehicle Registration Number].

I would like to bring to your attention the following points:

As the registered keeper XXX refute this charge and require that this PCN be cancelled on the following grounds:

 

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (5) and so is not POFA compliant
2. Inadequate Signage
3. Absence of Grace Period Information
4. No evidence of Land Owner Authority

 

Please see below for details.

1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

Under schedule 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if the conditions stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12 are met. In particular, these require that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraphs 9(4) and (5), these state –

 

(4) 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.

 

(5)   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 applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Having sent the notice by post, section (5) is then engaged and a 14 day limit on the issue of the PCN comes into effect. LDK's own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on 18th May 2024, but they did not issue the PCN until 3rd September 2024, 108 days after the suggested date of parking. The PCN therefore fails to comply with the POFA and XXX, as registered keeper, cannot be pursued for recovery of the charge.

 

2) Inadequate signage

The signage displayed by LDK is very unclear. A small poster a large dilapidated billboard and at a very difficult to read height with small text. The signage does not therefore comply with the BPA code of practice and LDK have provided no evidence despite my request to the contrary. XXX therefore refute the suggestion that any form of contract between the driver and LDK was entered into on the date of the alleged parking.

XXX draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it”

3) Absence of Grace Period Information

My initial appeal also sought information regarding the agreed grace period established by the landowner. Regrettably, LDK has not provided any details or evidence related to the grace period. Understanding the grace period is essential to determine if the alleged contravention occurred within the agreed timeframe.

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Considering the above points, I kindly request that POPLA carefully reviews my appeal and takes into account that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the inadequacies in LDK's response.

I look forward to a thorough and impartial review by POPLA. If there is any additional information required from my end, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

______________________________________________

Is this OK or should I tweak it further/add/remove information?

Thank you in advance

halo1982

I should add that I did not include "There is no driver liability" in the appeal with POPLA as the photographic evidence has a picture of RK opening the passenger door. - Should I ignore that and pursue no driver liability?

KeithP

halo1982 said:

I should add that I did not include "There is no driver liability" in the appeal with POPLA as the photographic evidence has a picture of RK opening the passenger door. - Should I ignore that and pursue no driver liability?

How do you think the parking company can determine the name of the person opening a door?
There is no database of pictures of people allowing them to do that.

Grizebeck

Do the keeper liability bit only.

LDast

halo1982 said:

I should add that I did not include "There is no driver liability" in the appeal with POPLA as the photographic evidence has a picture of RK opening the passenger door. - Should I ignore that and pursue no driver liability?

How would you or anyone else, who is not in the police and forensically investigating a crime, identify this person?

If you can answer and point us to the magical unicorn database where you input a photo and out spurts the persons identity and contact details, please let us know.

So, if you use a PoFA failure in your appeal, why on earth wouldn't you include no Keeper liability?

halo1982

Thank you very much and I believe I have understood

so the POPLA appeal reads like this now with "The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge" added- is that OK or shall I add/remove anything?

______________________________________________________________________

Dear POPLA,

Re: Appeal for Parking Charge Notice [Reference/PCN Number]

As the registered keeper, I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by [Parking Company Name] on [Date] for the vehicle with registration number [Vehicle Registration Number].

I would like to bring to your attention the following points:

As the registered keeper XXX refute this charge and require that this PCN be cancelled on the following grounds:

 

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (5) and so is not POFA compliant
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
   
3. Inadequate Signage
4. Absence of Grace Period Information
5. No evidence of Land Owner Authority

 

Please see below for details.

1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

Under schedule 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if the conditions stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12 are met. In particular, these require that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraphs 9(4) and (5), these state –

 

(4) 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.

 

(5)   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 applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Having sent the notice by post, section (5) is then engaged and a 14 day limit on the issue of the PCN comes into effect. LDK's own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on 18th May 2024, but they did not issue the PCN until 3rd September 2024, 108 days after the suggested date of parking. The PCN therefore fails to comply with the POFA and XXX, as registered keeper, cannot be pursued for recovery of the charge.

 2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge

 In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received.  

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver, of course, no other party can be made to pay. There has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced to indicate who it was. XXX is exercising its right not to name that person as it has done throughout.  XXX cannot lawfully be held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains that XXX is 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.

 Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 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."

3) Inadequate signage

The signage displayed by LDK is very unclear. A small poster on a large dilapidated billboard and at a very difficult to read height with small text. The signage does not therefore comply with the BPA code of practice and LDK have provided no evidence despite my request to the contrary. XXX therefore refute the suggestion that any form of contract between the driver and LDK was entered into on the date of the alleged parking.

XXX draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it”

4) Absence of Grace Period Information

My initial appeal also sought information regarding the agreed grace period established by the landowner. Regrettably, LDK has not provided any details or evidence related to the grace period. Understanding the grace period is essential to determine if the alleged contravention occurred within the agreed timeframe.

5) No evidence of Landowner Authority

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Considering the above points, I kindly request that POPLA carefully reviews my appeal and takes into account that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the inadequacies in LDK's response.

I look forward to a thorough and impartial review by POPLA. If there is any additional information required from my end, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

LDast

You are not writing a letter to POPLA. Use their webform and upload the appeal as a PDF without all the addresses, dear sirs, yours sincerely's and so on. Just the text you need with all the points and highlights and any photos you need embedded.

Drop the "looking forward to an impartial review".

Coupon-mad

I'd add at the end:

ZZPS: don't bother.  I'm not paying.