Draft POPLA appeal Parkingeye at Plymouth Passenger car park re Port Bye-laws

Fr1tzy

Hi there, my initial appeal re Parkingeye PCN was rejected so I've up-skilled with all the newbie /POPLA appeal info - I was hoping for a quick sense check of my draft appeal before submitting pls.  I haven't posted details re the PCN as I thought the info in my appeal gives enough detail(?) It should be a straightforward "not relevant land" issue so I have kept it to that (unclear signage and all of that won't apply) but any comments or red flag issues with the drafting would be appreciated, thanks so much:

POPLA Ref:  ……..

Operator:  Parkingeye

Parking Charge Notice (PCN) no:  ………..

 A PCN was issued on 5 September 2024 and received by the Appellant, being the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration …………, alleging contravention of the terms and conditions of use associated with the Passenger car park in Plymouth on 18 August 2024.  The Appellant writes as the registered keeper of the vehicle and requests that POPLA considers this appeal for the following reasons:

Summary

1.         Passenger car park is subject to bye-laws that came into force on 1 July 1894 together with the additional bye-laws added in 1977 (Port Bye-laws) – it is not relevant land for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and liability does not transfer from the driver to the registered keeper liability in respect of the debt associated with the PCN

 2.         Where POFA does not apply, the Operator must rely on the specific statutory controls in place at the relevant location – it has not established how the Appellant has breached the Port Bye-laws and /or that such contravention gives rise to any liability to settle the sum due under the PCN

 3.         The Operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver (who would be liable in respect of the PCN)

 Detailed Reasons for Appeal

1.         The Passenger car park lies within Plymouth (Millbay) Docks, previously known as Plymouth Great Western Docks but generally referred to as Plymouth Port.  It is operated by Associated British Ports (ABP) and is subject to the Port Bye-laws – a pdf copy is included with this Appeal for reference.  The extent of Plymouth Port is shown within the dashed redline on the map extracted below from ABP’s website:

The yellow highlighting on the left hand side of the extract shows the approximate location of the public car park next to the Brittany Ferries Passenger Terminal (as per the description on the PCN) where the parking contravention allegedly took place.  This area clearly lies within the dashed redline and is therefore subject to statutory control via the Port Bye-laws.  Accordingly, it is not “relevant land” under paragraph 3(1) in Schedule 4 of POFA and is specifically excluded from the “keeper liability” provisions within that legislation.  This means the Operator cannot rely on the usual transfer of liability from the driver to the registered keeper under POFA since this Act is not applicable to the site in question – the Appellant (as the registered keeper) will not be liable for the PCN on that basis. 

 If the Operator disputes that the Passenger car park associated with the PCN is located within Plymouth Port and /or that the Port Bye-laws do not apply, it is put to strict proof to provide documentary evidence /plans to support this assertion.

  

2.         Given that the Operator rejected the Appellant’s initial appeal citing the grounds set out in paragraph 1 above via its online portal and as the PCN does not specifically refer to POFA either, it appears the Operator does consider that liability in respect of the registered keeper has arisen under the Port Bye-laws.  Any claim to this effect is disputed and the Operator is put to strict proof to establish:

a.    which of the Port Bye-laws has been breached; and

b.    how the payment demanded under the PCN is justified in connection with the breach of any Port Bye-laws; and

c.     how liability in respect of such breach transfers to the registered keeper

  

3.         In cases where the Appellant is the registered keeper and “keeper liability” under POFA does not apply, POPLA must first consider whether they can be confident that the driver of the vehicle has been properly identified, based on the evidence received.  No reasonable presumption can be made about liability whatsoever.  A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner), provided the driver is insured.  The Appellant confirms this was case here but there has been no admission as to the identity of the individual who was driving – the Appellant has elected not to name the driver, as is their right.

 Since POFA cannot be relied on, the burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that the Appellant (being the registered keeper) has personally failed to comply with terms and conditions regarding use of the car park and that the Appellant is thereby personally liable for the unpaid parking charge.  No such evidence has been presented and the Operator cannot reasonably substantiate any assertion to this effect. 

 

 

In light of the grounds set out above, it is considered that no lawful right exists for the Operator to pursue unpaid parking charges from the Appellant (being the registered keeper of the vehicle) – liability for the PCN does not transfer from the driver on the basis that POFA does not apply to the car park in question.

 The Appellant therefore requests that POPLA upholds this appeal and the Operator is required to cancel the corresponding PCN. 

Coupon-mad

I'd add to point 2 an observation that the document received is not a Penalty Notice, it's a Parking Charge Notice and it is incapable of holding the keeper liable. This is ParkingEye's non-POFA version with nothing about keeper liability on the back.

I'd also add the standard No landowner authority point.

And I'd add unclear signs. That always applies.

Fr1tzy

ok will do, thanks for the advice

lexiLD

Hello, just wondering how you got on with this? I tried to make a (less detailed/well researched) appeal to Parking Eye after a charge for parking at a port in Southampton and they just sent a letter saying:

"You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the

breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection

of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking

charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were

not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal

address of the driver.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not

been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we

have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered

keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable

conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.

Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you

do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, Parkingeye will be

obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.

Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the

evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well

be rejected and a POPLA code provided."

Which is just confusing and doesn't tell me what to do next.

So just wondered how they responded to your similar situation!

Le_Kirk

The OP @Fr1tzy hasn't been on the forum since January.  You might get some reaction if you send a PM using the envelope symbol at top right.