PPC received after an oversight from us.... !

brab888

Too much..?

Hello, 

I am writing to ask for your assistance with regards to an unlawfully issued parking ticket at your car park. Before I send my appeal to POPLA where it will be cancelled due to its non compliance with the protection of freedom act (2012) and multiple failings with the British parking association (BPA) I am asking if you will inform NSGL of the cancellation from yourselves. 

I am still stunned that no one from your team wants to do this ten minute admin job because I haven’t signed a contract to pay you thousands of pounds for a wedding on your grounds. No one is going to be out of pocket here with regards to your car park income. 

This will be my last email and if I don’t hear back from you I will presume you have decided to ignore a local resident. I will ensure that no one else falls victim to your private car park scam business (NSGL) through social media. 

It is completely unjust and just obsessively greedy that you are allowing threatening letters to be sent demanding monies of approximately £100 for stays of half an hour where human error resulted in an oversight on displaying the actual ticket. 

I am urging you to come to your senses. It’s a ten minute admin job. 

brab888

Hi all, 

I am just writing up my POPLA letter.

In the original PPC there is a sentence which says 'If you were not the driver at the time, You are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver's full name...' e.t.c. Can I include this typo crap in my case at all? Is it worth anything from the original PPC, it could obviously be misleading/contradictory... 

Also noted that the NtK does not provide a time observed field... the PPC did but not the NtK this just has a time of event. 

Thanks

Coupon-mad

That link requires access. Links are not great.

More people will reply if you just copy & paste your appeal across 2 replies.

Gr1pr

The numbering is incorrect near the beginning , plus lower down 

You dont ask questions, you put them to strict proof 

Coupon-mad

I can't see that you made the observations about that sign that I listed for you.

brab888

I have it all on my word file but the captions e.t.c. Aren’t copying and pasting on here. I'll get rid of the questions.

Those pics are the signs of the car park, do you mean another one? Are you referring to the 'terms and conditions' reply you added?

Coupon-mad

My reply about what is and isn't on the sign.

brab888

UPDATED

Vehicle Registration:

POPLA ref:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter acting as a notice to the registered keeper. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

 

1)    Poor and inadequate signage AND total lack of legible contractual signage

  

2)  No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 

 

3)  Non-compliance with POFA 2012

 

4)    Relevant land – incorrect address…

 

 

 

1.    Lack of legible contractual signange

The BPA Code of Practice point 21.5a stipulates that:  

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence  that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to  and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. 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." 

 

The NtK dictates that the signage states that the ‘car park/site is managed by NSGL PARKING Parking on behalf of the Landowner, and the terms and conditions of the carpark/site by which those who park agree to be bound’. The signage does not clearly show this ‘contract’ with the size of the text being illegible and no clear signs ‘throughout the site’ as mentioned in the NtK. This microscopic text is not legible from sat inside a stationary car (See figures 1 & 2).

 

 

Figure 1: The ‘sign’ for the ‘site’; As sent by the lurking ticket issuer themselves.

 

Figure 2: The ‘sign’ for the ‘site’ taken from standing height. 

The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage  throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice  19.2 and 27.2) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to  entering into a contract (if there even is one in the tiny illegible text at the bottom). 

2.     No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is  put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA  Code of Practice 

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they  produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any  'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as  any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of  veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is  authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact  have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent  is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the  agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers  and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land  use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). 

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed,  generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I  suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by  each party to the agreement. 

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption  clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times  set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary  and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the  various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and  of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be  assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking  terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). 

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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. 

a)    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: 

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

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

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

e)    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

f)      e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

 

Also NSGL PARKING Parking have identified themselves as the 'creditor' in the Notice To Keeper I received. The letter states that NSGL PARKING Parking manage the car park on behalf of the Landowner.

A disclosed principal means that the contract is with Lulworth Estate, especially where an agent takes no responsibility for the land.

The authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Ex 169, is authority for the legal position, that where there is a disclosed principal, an agent cannot sue.

Therefore NSGL PARKING Parking is not established as the creditor, has no standing to litigate and is merely acting as an agent, issuing charges on behalf of the principal, the disclosed landowner, Lulworth Estate.

Therefore as Registered Keeper, I cannot be held liable for this charge.

 

3. Notice to Keeper wording not POFA 2012 compliant.

 

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) shown from NSGL Parking, use the words "The keeper is  notified..." instead of "You are warned..." when referring to the 28 days after which the Registered Keeper (RK) will become liable.

PoFA 2012 9(2)(f) specifically states "The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given..."

The following argument could be used to hammer the point home:

In arguing the case that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) from an unregulated private parking company is invalid due to the use of "notified" instead of "warned" in relation to liability, POPLA should consider the following points:

a)     **Specific Language of PoFA 2012

   - The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) sets out specific requirements for NtKs, particularly in relation to the liability of the registered keeper (RK). It explicitly uses the term "warn" when describing the notification to the keeper about their potential liability.

 

b)     **Legal Precision

   - Legal documents and statutes are often drafted with precision. If the legislation specifies the use of the term "warn", it implies a deliberate choice of language, and deviation from this language may be argued as a failure to meet the legal requirements.

 

c)    **Intent and Clarity:**

   - The use of the term "warn" implies a certain level of seriousness and urgency. It suggests that the registered keeper needs to be clearly made aware of the consequences and potential liability. If the NtK uses the term "notified" instead, it may be argued that it does not meet the required level of clarity and seriousness as intended by the legislation.

 

d)  **Purpose of Warning

   - PoFA 2012 includes the requirement for a warning to ensure that the registered keeper is informed about their potential liability and the importance of addressing the matter promptly. If the NtK uses a softer term like "notified", it may be contended that the purpose of the warning, which is to convey a sense of urgency and potential consequences, is not adequately fulfilled.

 

e)    **Legislative Compliance:**

   - Compliance with legislative requirements is crucial for the validity of any legal document, including NtKs. If the language used in the NtK deviates from what is prescribed by the legislation, it may be argued that the document fails to meet the statutory requirements and, therefore, is not legally effective.

 

4. Notice to Keeper- the relevant land

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. Therefore, the operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the PCN. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the PoFA 2012 must be adhered to.

The operator must meet schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) which states: “(2) The notice must—(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

In this case the Notice to Keeper states Lulworth Estate, Wareham, BH20 5RQ however the signs used as evidence for the ‘site’ in question are for Lulworth Cove Car Park, West Lulworth a quick internet search will show this. The correct address and postcode for the sign in evidence is Lulworth Cove Car Park, West Lulworth, BH20 5RS (I have a snapshot below from trusty Google). The incorrect address including postcode on the NtK alone should support POPLA to allow this appeal.

 

Figure 3: Lulworth COVE CAR PARK ADDRESS

I therefore request that you consider my appeal and cancel this unfair parking charge notice due to the reasons mentioned above.

 

Faithfully,

 

XoX

brab888

...'The NtK dictates that the signage states that the ‘car park/site is managed by NSGL PARKING Parking on behalf of the Landowner, and the terms and conditions of the carpark/site by which those who park agree to be bound’. The signage does not clearly show this ‘contract’ or any terms and conditions with the size of the text being illegible and no clear signs ‘throughout the site’ as mentioned in the NtK. This microscopic text is not legible from sat inside a stationary car (See figures 1 & 2).' 

Want me to mention the stout shoes?  

Coupon-mad

I still can't see the wording I wrote about the terms & conditions.