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

brab888

Thinking I should add some notes about the £100 being buried in small print? / previous cases from 2023 where POPLA have granted the appeal e.t.c?

The amount they are claiming is £90 but all the same right.

fisherjim

If the signage still looks like this they are on a sticky wicket:

brab888

Just seen this on GMAPS says 2023..... feel so screwed didn't even see this. We're gonna have to go back down there to find out fml. 

brab888

Would the relevant land be enough anyway maybe as its just a totally different postcode and address really. They have given the 'headquarters' of the landowner rather than where the parking allegedly took place. 

Gr1pr

Penalty charges is incorrect, the NTK PCN letter is not a penalty 

If they are claiming £90, its still buried in small print, hence the replies by coupon mad 

Its still not clear who the parking contract is with, the large font seems to convey that its with the Landowner 

Coupon-mad

brab888 said:

Would the relevant land be enough anyway maybe as its just a totally different postcode and address really. They have given the 'headquarters' of the landowner rather than where the parking allegedly took place. 

No.

The lack of £100 and lack of t&cs and the name of the operator on the signs 'in big' is your main point. 

brab888

Thanks for the recommendations & info I’ll amend shortly 👍🏼 

brab888

How's this update? I wasn't sure how to word the bit about a previous POPLA's assessment or prove that that was said e.t.c.... but it's obviously from a case that was won on here from the POPLA decision bit. 

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)    Lack of prominent, clear or legible signage from all parking spaces & insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

 

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

 

3)    Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice: non-compliance 

 

4)    Non-compliance with POFA 2012 based on wording given in NtK

 

 

5)    Relevant land – incorrect address on NtK of ‘observation’

 

 

1.    Lack of prominent, clear or legible signage from all parking spaces & insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

 

There is no legible contract from the signs in this car park nor is there any indication as to who the contract could be with. The sum in question of £90 is nowhere to be seen by a visible eye from the car whilst entering the site or parking within. Any terms and conditions are not visible from the vehicle when parking in this site so a contract could therefore never be entered into and thus finds this ‘charge’ non-compliant. (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice 19.2 and 27.2)

 

As POPLA have previously mentioned …’I must concur with the appellant that it is written in a small font, particularly in relation to the conditions that precede it. I must also state that I cannot consider the design of this sign is consistent with the signage considered in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Therefore, I am unable to conclude the parking operator’s evidence is sufficient to rebut the appellant’s grounds in respect of notice of the rate of the PCN. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.’ Therefore as the signage precedence set by the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis exists I must request that you allow this appeal on the grounds that the signage in this case is consistent with the above precedence.

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).

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." 

 

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

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

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

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

f)       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. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice– 

non-compliance 

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. 

BPA’s Code of Practice (A8.4) states that: 

“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not  normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and  conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having  had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you  must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.” 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:  

“13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.3) states that:  

“13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN..” 

The BPA Code of Practice (13.1) and (13.3) clearly state that the Grace Period to  enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst (13.1) and  (13.3) do not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never  entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace  period each should apply to (13.1) BPA’s Code of Practice. 

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association  (BPA):

 

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the  motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply  with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”  

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but  another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”  

a) 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. 

b) There is no marked parking bay through out the site which causes  confusion to the applicability of the NSGL Parking contract, that was never  entered into in the first place. 

 c) The lengthiness of NSGL Parking signage (in terms of word count) all  written in tiny text the across of the sign (see Figure 2). 

 

 

 

 

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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.

 

  

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

 

Faithfully,

 

XoX

 

 

 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Who is the contract with to pay £100? What I mean is, I cannot make out any parking firm's name on that sign, which appears to be a set of offers and guidance from the landowner directly.

Nor can I see anything about any 'terms & conditions' except instructions to wear stout shoes and drink lots of water.

Cannot see £100 on that sign.

This is the wording I meant.

brab888

Thanks will add that bit specifically regarding the offers&guidance from the landowners. 

There’s a lot to get sidetracked on!