Luton Retail Park PCN

scooter72

Good afternoon all

I am at a stage with POPLA where Group Nexus has responded to my appeal.:

They did not address my point (5, in my letter) that the NtK did not invite me, as the keeper, to be able to pay the charge. Only that the driver was liable.

Also, their details of the parking area are old (2021) - since then there is another exit to the parking area. Group Nexus do reference a 'rear exit' not being developed in their reply. However, it is in operation.(Red circle in the overhead map view, below.)

GN have also indicated that there is signage installed along the southern boundary of the car parking area between Starbucks and McDonalds. This is incorrect. There is only one GDP sign (very small) on this chainlink fence. There are no other signs along this section. (this is the red boxed section, below.)

I have 6 days to respond to POPLA.

Any suggestions? I will also check the Newbies Thread again :-)

Thank you

S

Coupon-mad

Email POPLA what you told us (below) and forget arguing about keeper liability (which was on tenuous grounds:

Also, their details of the parking area are old (2021) - since then there is another exit to the parking area. Group Nexus do reference a 'rear exit' not being developed in their reply. However, it is in operation.(Red circle in the overhead map view, below.)

GN have also indicated that there is signage installed along the southern boundary of the car parking area between Starbucks and McDonalds. This is incorrect. There is only one GDP sign (very small) on this chainlink fence. There are no other signs along this section. (this is the red boxed section, below.)

scooter72

Hi Coupon-mad

Thanks for the input - I have drawn up a reply:

Dear Sir

In the first instance, the response supplied by the Operator does not clarify my questions on my responsibility as a Registered Keeper.

 The NtK states that I ‘should’ tell them of the details of the driver.

I believe that there is no legal requirement for me to do this. Further, their use of the word ‘should’ does not mean I am obliged or required to submit this information to them. The Brittanical definition of ‘should’ is: “to say or suggest that something is the proper, reasonable, or best thing to do”.

 This does not mean that I ‘must’ carry out their request - nor does it mean I need to agree that  it may be the proper, resonsable or the best thing to do.

Secondly the Operator did not offer me, as the Registered Keeper, any opportunity to pay their Charge. This is a requirement within PoFA

 Their NtK states:

1)  the driver of the vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge in full.

Then :

2) after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the Charge is 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

 In the Operators NtK, there is no offer to me that I, as the Regsitered Keeper, may settle their Charge.

 

In response to their comments:

  

Section B Para 2

Their response states “As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.”

 Does this mean the reason the Operator is holding me liable is just because I did not provide the drivers details?

 Section B Para 5:

The letter indicates that by parking my vehicle on the site, that I entered into valid contract. If I was not the driver and only the Registered keeper - how could I be entered into a contract if I was not the driver?

  

Section B Para 6:

 The Operator states that it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they comply with the T’s and C’s of the site. It then states that I breached those T’s and C’s. Again, there appears to be a supposition by the Operator that I was the driver. The Operator has not provided evidence to support this.

 

Section B Para 7:

The Operator states “We note that the Driver has now appealed to yourselves”. This is incorrect - I , as the registered keeper, have appealed. The Operator has not provided evidence on the identification of the driver, nor have I given information to the Operator on the identity of the driver.

 

Section B Para 8:

The Operator states that they confirm that they have authority to act on behalf of the landowner and that ‘I genuinely believe’ that Group Nexus does not have such authority.

 

The signage in the car parking area indicates that it is “Managed and operated on behalf of Savills by CP Plus Ltd, T/A Group Nexus”

I understand that Savills are not the landowners, but Delancey may be?

 

I am not in a position (nor have I indicated this) that I don’t believe this may be the case - however I believe that it is the responsibility of the Operator to be able to produce evidence to POPLA that they have been given this authority by the Landowner (and not Savills, who I would suggest are NOT the landowner, but may only be offering a management service.)

 

Section B Para 8:

 The Operator indictates that the signage is in compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

The Operator offers an aerial view of the land in question. (P16 of their reponse). This diagram indicates that there are wall signs (600x800 along the south western border (along Gipsy Lane). Photographs taken Monday 21 April proves that there are no signs along this full length (between McDonalds and the main entrance.

 

Though it is noted in the Operators correspondence that there is a ‘Rear exist still to be built’ (p36), the rear exist is in operation.

 The photographs in the operators reply of the signage is in very clear daylight conditions and from a close distance. This does not truly portray the ‘real-life’ visulisation and legibility - where normal viewing is at greater distances and lower elevations. The photos also do not offer levels of legibility of the signage when in dark night-time conditions or in poor visibity due to rain and or mist.

I would like to reiterate that it was reported to me that at the time of the parking incident, it was late on a winters night with light rain/mist. Visibility was reduced and signage was not clearly visible.

 

 I would suggest that the evidence of signage submitted by the Operators is both outdated and misrepresentative of true conditions and that this evidence cannot be relied upon.