2024 Northampton - new AZURE parking - PARKING Charge

6liuxa

Coupon-mad said:

Easy POPLA appeal. No keeper liability.  (Removed by Forum Team) can't add up.

POINTS were removed to keep thread a bit cleaner

Easy POPLA appeal Below

Coupon-mad

Too long and it's not about when it was delivered.  It's about the dates.

6liuxa

Should It be very simple as you said?

I am writing to formally challenge the parking charge notice (PCNXXX) referenced above, which was issued to my vehicle (MY VRN) by Azure Parking.

Grounds for Appeal: No Keeper's Liability Due to Late Service of the Notice to Keeper

The primary basis for my appeal is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not served within the legally prescribed time frame as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. According to this Act, the parking operator must issue the NtK to the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of the alleged contravention.

Upon reviewing the NtK I received, it is clear that it was served 15 after the date of the alleged parking event, which is beyond the 14-day limit. As a result, the operator has failed to comply with the statutory requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Section 9(4).

Therefore, as the Notice to Keeper was issued too late, I believe that no keeper liability can apply in this case, and I respectfully request that this parking charge be cancelled.

Additional Information:

• The alleged contravention occurred on 18/09/2024
• The Notice to Keeper was received on  03/10/2024
• The number of days between the alleged contravention and the receipt of the NtK is 16.

Given the parking operator’s failure to serve the Notice to Keeper within the legally prescribed time frame, I respectfully request that this charge is cancelled and that the case is closed.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your prompt response.

Don't add anything about (Removed by Forum Team)?

Or Non-compliant NtK or even lacking evidence?

6liuxa

POINT2 (NTK) below if this is helpful at all.

1. the above...
2. Insufficient Evidence Provided in the Notice to Keeper and Online Portal

In addition to the above, I wish to highlight that the NtK and the suggested online portal were lacking essential evidence that would allow the keeper to make an informed decision regarding the alleged contravention. The following critical details were missing:

• Arrival and Departure Times: The NtK did not provide any information regarding the exact arrival and departure times of the vehicle. Without these details, it is impossible to assess whether the vehicle was parked for an appropriate duration and whether any applicable grace period was observed.

• Grace Period: There was no mention of whether a grace period was allowed before or after the alleged contravention, which is important to determine if the charge is valid. According to the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, a minimum grace period of 10 minutes is required, and no evidence was provided to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

• Photographs of the Vehicle: The NtK did not include any photographs of the vehicle at the alleged time of the contravention, nor were they available via the online portal. The absence of photographic evidence makes it difficult to verify the validity of the charge and the exact nature of the alleged contravention.

Given these significant omissions, the operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the parking charge or to allow the keeper to properly assess the case. As such, I request that the charge be cancelled on these grounds as well.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, including the late service of the Notice to Keeper and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the alleged contravention, I respectfully request that the parking charge be cancelled and the case closed.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your prompt response.

(my credentials)

Coupon-mad

It's not about when it was received.

6liuxa

Coupon-mad said:

It's not about when it was received.

I don't get it! Genuinely!

Is it "posted/printed" vs "received"?

It's served 15+ days after, so no keepers liability applies? So as a keeper - I am out?

What am I missing?

If it is far too much to explain - drop me a hint where to read. How to understand? 

6 days trying to understand your comments and apply..

kryten3000

It goes like this:

Date of parking event 18/09 which is day 0
Date of ISSUE of the PCN is 01/10 which is day 13
Date of SERVICE of the PCN is the second working day following postage which is 03/10, day 15.

Since the NTK was served outside of the statutory timeframe, there is no keeper liability.

The secondary point is that their notice is likely to not contain the statutory information which also invalidates keeper liability.  EITHER of these is enough to win at POPLA.  

Gr1pr

This one just won at Popla for the same reasons, even though the timescales were longer, same argument , a parking company fails POFA, fails at Popla too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6548349/appeal-rejected-by-ldk-no-notice-on-windshield#latest

Coupon-mad

6liuxa said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's not about when it was received.

I don't get it! Genuinely!

Is it "posted/printed" vs "received"?

Nope it's when the Act says it was DEEMED served.  As explained by @kryten3000

6liuxa

Appreciate full explanation.

All you guys Coupon-mad & Gr1pr & Kryten300 

Thanks. 

So I did get it & just because it is kind of legal (similar at least)  - wording is of BIG importance here.

The explanation along the lines will not satisfy POPLA.

The ACT says - DEEMED served (official deadline + evidence as printed date on the letter) vs Factual (Received late) - for the same reason - ultimately same for commoner like me, BUT it requires pointing obvious to POPLA?

Like pointing puppy to the puddle 

Thank you for explanation, I hope it will go well, as I did pulled the trigger with my version in fear of deadline (that is 28days since received POPOLA code.. (knowing now from recent Dailymail post of the judge https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-14097155/Beat-unfair-private-car-parking-charge-STEPHEN-GOLD.html?ico=mol_desktop_money )    

It's weird with me, I kind of find the answers or realise something after submitting forms, provide response. literally information gets to me shortly after. I need some assessment.

will update as hear from Popla.