Intitial Parking - Unpaid Tariff Time - Wendron Street Car Park Helston.

eight30

Hi,

I originall posted this on FTLA, but got no responses so I'm posting here instead. 

I've read other posts relating to this company, but got a bit confused as some seem to say don't ignore but others say you can ignore.

Apologies for any delays in responding, currently recovering from the flu so not feeling 100% atm


I am posting on behalf of a relative as they are not tech savvy.

PCN received from Initial Parking dated 24th December 2024 arrived 3rd January 2025.

Whilst on holiday the Driver parked in the Wendron Street car park, Helston on the 20th December 2024 from 11.29 - 11.53, entered the registration and paid the 80p charge for 1 hour parking, in cash (they only a £1 coin).

On pushing the last button, no ticket was printed and the machine went back the original screen

No change was given, nor was the £1 returned.

Ticketless carparks are becoming more common in the Drivers local area, so nothing was thought of no ticket being issued.

No photos of the signage in the carpark, driver lives 200 miles away. They maybe back in the area later this month, early next month.

LDast

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA.

The Notice to Keeper issued by Initial Parking is non-compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to a contradiction in the payment deadline specified on the notice.

The front of the NtK prominently states: “Payment to be made within 28 days of issue”. This instruction contradicts the statutory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they have 28 days from the day after the notice is deemed to be given (served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details.

According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to Keeper is deemed to be served two working days after posting, meaning the 28-day period must start after this deemed service date. The instruction on the front of the NtK, however, misleadingly demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, which shortens the legal timeframe available to the keeper.

Whilst further down the NtK attempts to reference the correct timeframe, the most prominent instruction on the front is incorrect and legally misleading. The contradictory timeframes create confusion for the recipient and breach the requirement for clarity and transparency under PoFA.

As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v. Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA. Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.

Therefore, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

---

Gr1pr

No posts tell people to ignore a pcn from a private parking company,  especially not BPA AOS members like Initial 

People are told to ignore debt collectors  !

Clearly the driver paid according to your account above,  but the machine didn't register the cash payment or issue a receipt for the payment,  ergo you believe that the machine was faulty,  so why would anyone not appeal it   ?

Appeal stating that full payment of £1 was made but the faulty machine failed to do its job, so no breach of the parking contract occurred,  in fact the driver fully complied with the signage and rules

eight30

Thank you both for your replies.

The 28 days of issue v 28 days of service certainly makes a difference when taking into account the many non working days over the Christmas period!

The post that confused me must have been to to the same Private Parking Company but in relation to the Debt Collectors instead. Thank you for clearing that up for me, good thing I decided to post here! I don't want to give my relative the wrong information.

I will sort out an appeal for them now

Coupon-mad

eight30 said:

Thank you both for your replies.

The 28 days of issue v 28 days of service certainly makes a difference when taking into account the many non working days over the Christmas period!

No it doesn't. That's irrelevant.

Ignore them when you lose at POPLA. 

eight30

As predicted the Popla Appeal was unsuccessful - Decision below

Is ignoring everything unless Court proceedings are started the best course of action now?

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Rachel Hackney

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to unpaid tariff time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • The appellant says the Notice to Keeper is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so the charge would not be valid to transfer liability to the keeper. • They state that due to the Christmas period there is a greater time between the date of issue and date of service than other times of year. • The payment was made in cash via the machine. • No ticket was provided but as ticketless machine are becoming more common they did not believe this to be an issue. • They believe there must be a fault with the machine. The appellant has provided 1. A copy of the notice to keeper. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated the grounds of appeal adding that the photos of signage are from 11-13 months prior to the event and there is nothing to show this have not altered. There is also a discrepancy between the parking charges in the photos and the contract for parking enforcement. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has stated that the NTK is not POFA 2012 compliant as there is a contradiction where the keeper is advised “payment to be made within 28 days”. They say that this contradicts Paragraph 9(2)(f) where the keeper must be informed that they have 28 days from the day after the notice is given to either pay the charge or provide drivers details. POFA does not specify payment timescales. The notice does correctly state “after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), 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. This Notice 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.” The notice was issued to the keeper within 14 days and wording is compliant with POFA therefore the appeal will be considered under keeper liability. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise this is a pay and display car park. Please purchase a ticket for the duration of your stay from the machine. Tariff rates are clearly displayed along with payment instructions. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided ANPR images to demonstrate that the vehicle entered the car park at 11:29 and left at 11:53. The appellant has stated that they paid cash and did not receive a ticket but were not concerned due to the rise in ticketless machines. The How to Pay board situated between the payment machines clearly shows the final stage in payment with cash as take the receipt. Lack of a ticket could therefore indicate a problem. The vehicle registration is also entered during the payment process which allows the payment to be allocated to the correct vehicle for enforcement purposes. The payment look up details show no paid session for this vehicle. While I appreciate that the appellant says the money was taken, POPLA can only assess cases based on the evidence available. No evidence has been provided which would suggest a fault with the machine. I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the parking operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these this as part of my decision. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as no payment is recorded for this vehicle, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Gr1pr

Its not ignoring everything else,  just debt collectors letters 

Come back to this thread if or when you receive a Letter of Claim giving 30 days notice,  or a court claim 

eight30

Okay, thank you Gr1pr for clarifying that