Time of alleged breach per the NtD differs on Notice to keeper.

Bazarius

Nothing wrong with the above - it’s exactly how it appears on POPLA . 

I would argue that their argument “The NTK does NOT Have to repeat the NTD information- it is a different document altogether” is false and misleading. 

PofA clearly states that the notice must relate to the specified period of parking . 

para 8.2 “.  (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);”

The operator has failed to read the fact that 7.2(c)  states ; 

“c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);”

So yes they have to repeat that information from the NTD in accordance with 8.2(c) . 

The NTK is defective . 

Don’t worry too much if POPLA assessor get it wrong . Just try to lead them by the nose the best you can  - there is always court to get the correct decision . 

fisherjim

Their POPLA submission is very amateurish and reads like a petulant child wrote it; "They flat out refuse"   

This is also rubbish:

"Procedure has been followed to the letter. They state our NTK does not meet PoFA requirements, however as it is Audited by the BPA it does, and we would not be allowed to operate if it didn’t".

They do not have to follow PoFA requirements on the NTK and some big PPC's choose not to e.g. APCOA 

"The signage is also audited"

It isn't audited on site, only sample master copies, I am willing to bet they cannot produce a record of an on site BPA audit of this car park. There are thousands of signs out there that are either non compliant or so worn out or damaged they are useless, which all PPC's will claim have been audited, they bend the truth until it snaps in half!

"None of the points raised regarding signage, NTK, time, confusion etc were mentioned in the first stage appeal- which was a generic ‘google’ appeal containing no mitigating circumstances whatsoever- it therefore would not be fair nor right to consider these additional appeal reasons." 

So what, your appeal your words your research, and in any case the PPC is supposed to consider mitigation at stage one (they never do), POPLA do not consider mitigation, and you can add what you like, no PPC can tell an appeals assessor to discount what to consider.

They are laughable idiots.

Coupon-mad

Bazarius said:

I would argue that their argument “The NTK does NOT Have to repeat the NTD information- it is a different document altogether” is false and misleading. 

PofA clearly states that the notice must relate to the specified period of parking . 

para 8.2 “.  (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);”

The operator has failed to read the fact that 7.2(c)  states ; 

“c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);”

So yes they have to repeat that information from the NTD in accordance with 8.2(c) . 

The NTK is defective . 

You beat me to it Baz!

The above is exactly what the comments must say.

Pastafarian_fsm

Thanks so much guys, I will highlight the operators deficiencies to POPLA.

Why is it though that we need to point these out to POPLA? Isn't it their job to know this stuff? Or am I being naïve?

Coupon-mad

It's because it's a cheap service and the Assessors have minutes per case, aren't legally qualified and make mistakes. However, at least it is impartial and somewhat independent, unlike the other one (the IAS kangaroo court where appeals go to die). 

Pastafarian_fsm

Coupon-mad said:

It's because it's a cheap service and the Assessors have minutes per case, aren't legally qualified and make mistakes. However, at least it is impartial and somewhat independent, unlike the other one (the IAS kangaroo court where appeals go to die). 

Got the POPLA result today. Time to pay up?

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. POPLA only assesses the evidence that is submitted at the time of the original appeal. This is because both the parking operator and the motorist must be given the opportunity to comment on the evidence the opposite party has provided. Any time after the submission, no further evidence can be requested to support the case of either party. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. The appellant has provided the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper and claims that it does not meet the requirements of PoFA. They have also provided their appeal correspondence with the parking operator. For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 8.2, it needs to state that if the details of the driver during the time of the contravention are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is liable for the unpaid parking charge. It must also have been issued to the keeper within the relevant time period. The appellant has specifically referred to the period of parking and claims this information is not repeated on the PCNs. The Notice to Driver contains the date 10 March 2025 and the observation time of 11:02 - this tells us the period of parking. The Notice to Keeper also gives the date of 10 March 2025 and the time the PCN was issued, 11:05. It also contains the warden images of the vehicle during the period of parking. I am satisfied the parking operator has repeated the relevant information and successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that there must be a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the site. They must tell drivers that the site is managed and there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. There are some minimum principles it must follow and must be of a standard format. It must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. The appellant has provided a Google Maps image of the car park entrance from 2021, this is prior to when the parking operator’s contract with the landowner commenced and therefore there would not be any entrance sign in this image. The parking operator has provided a photograph of the entrance sign from the car park. Whilst this is not timestamped, there is evidence of signs in situ on the day of the parking event. I have no reason to believe that the entrance sign was not present on the day in question. Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that specific parking-terms signs shows drivers what the terms and conditions are, including any parking charges. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The parking operator should keep a record of where they are placed. The signs must be conspicuous, legible, and clear, making them easy to see, read and understand. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states that signs should be readable and understandable at all times of the day, including during dusk and in the dark if parking enforcement takes place at those times. This can be achieved by using direct lighting or lighting for the car park area. If the sign is not directly or indirectly lit, the sign should be made of retro-reflective material as described in the Traffic Signs Manual. The parking operator has provided multiple images of the signs present on the site and demonstrated that lighting poles are installed around the car park. It has also included a photograph of the sign taken from the day in question. I am satisfied that there are sufficient signs installed across the site. The evidence provided demonstrates that all signs meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. After reviewing this, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions were adequately brought to the motorist’s attention even in the dark. Both the appellant and the parking operator have provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £60 PCN will be issued to drivers who do not park in a designated bay. The parking operator has provided several photographs showing the vehicle was parked outside of any bay markings. The appellant believes the surface markings were unclear and provided an overhead image of the car park. Section 3.3 of the Code states that where drivers are required to park within delineated parking bays, markings must be applied and maintained so they are clearly visible to drivers in all lighting and weather conditions. After reviewing the parking operator’s images of the parked vehicle on the day, the surrounding bay markings are well maintained and very visible. I am satisfied that these will have been visible in all lighting conditions on the day. It is evidence that the vehicle was not parked within a contained white box and therefore was not parked within a bay. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the parking operator has provided their Customer License Agreement. It showed the contract commenced on 1 September 2023 and is current. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in a non-designated bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Umkomaas

Never 'time to pay up' to an unregulated private parking company, until a Judge instructs you to.  

Would you please break up that wall of text into some readable paragraphs if you want a regular to provide some thoughts. 

Pastafarian_fsm

Umkomaas said:

Never 'time to pay up' to an unregulated private parking company, until a Judge instructs you to.  

Would you please break up that wall of text into some readable paragraphs if you want a regular to provide some thoughts. 

Of course, sorry.

Assessor Supporting Rational for Decision

POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal.

POPLA only assesses the evidence that is submitted at the time of the original appeal. This is because both the parking operator and the motorist must be given the opportunity to comment on the evidence the opposite party has provided. Any time after the submission, no further evidence can be requested to support the case of either party.

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. The appellant has provided the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper and claims that it does not meet the requirements of PoFA. They have also provided their appeal correspondence with the parking operator.

For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 8.2, it needs to state that if the details of the driver during the time of the contravention are unknown or not provided, then the registered keeper is liable for the unpaid parking charge. It must also have been issued to the keeper within the relevant time period.

The appellant has specifically referred to the period of parking and claims this information is not repeated on the PCNs. The Notice to Driver contains the date 10 March 2025 and the observation time of 11:02 – this tells us the period of parking. The Notice to Keeper also gives the date of 10 March 2025 and the time the PCN was issued, 11:05. It also contains the warden images of the vehicle during the period of parking. I am satisfied the parking operator has repeated the relevant information and successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026.

Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that there must be a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the site. They must tell drivers that the site is managed and there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. There are some minimum principles it must follow and must be of a standard format. It must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park.

The appellant has provided a Google Maps image of the car park entrance from 2021, this is prior to when the parking operator’s contract with the landowner commenced and therefore there would not be any entrance sign in this image. The parking operator has provided a photograph of the entrance sign from the car park. Whilst this is not timestamped, there is evidence of signs in situ on the day of the parking event. I have no reason to believe that the entrance sign was not present on the day in question.

Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that specific parking-terms signs shows drivers what the terms and conditions are, including any parking charges. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The parking operator should keep a record of where they are placed. The signs must be conspicuous, legible, and clear, making them easy to see, read and understand.

Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice states that signs should be readable and understandable at all times of the day, including during dusk and in the dark if parking enforcement takes place at those times. This can be achieved by using direct lighting or lighting for the car park area. If the sign is not directly or indirectly lit, the sign should be made of retro-reflective material as described in the Traffic Signs Manual. The parking operator has provided multiple images of the signs present on the site and demonstrated that lighting poles are installed around the car park. It has also included a photograph of the sign taken from the day in question.

I am satisfied that there are sufficient signs installed across the site. The evidence provided demonstrates that all signs meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. After reviewing this, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions were adequately brought to the motorist’s attention even in the dark.

Both the appellant and the parking operator have provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £60 PCN will be issued to drivers who do not park in a designated bay. The parking operator has provided several photographs showing the vehicle was parked outside of any bay markings. The appellant believes the surface markings were unclear and provided an overhead image of the car park.

Section 3.3 of the Code states that where drivers are required to park within delineated parking bays, markings must be applied and maintained so they are clearly visible to drivers in all lighting and weather conditions. After reviewing the parking operator’s images of the parked vehicle on the day, the surrounding bay markings are well maintained and very visible. I am satisfied that these will have been visible in all lighting conditions on the day. It is evidence that the vehicle was not parked within a contained white box and therefore was not parked within a bay.

Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the parking operator has provided their Customer License Agreement. It showed the contract commenced on 1 September 2023 and is current.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in a non-designated bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Umkomaas

OK, thanks for separating out the POPLA word porridge. Ignore it. And ignore any silly debt collector letters. 

Parking Solutions 24 aren't a prolific litigator - I can't easily recall any case of theirs that has gone as far as a concluded court hearing. Should they try a potshot in your case, await a Letter Of/Before Claim - giving you a 30 day deadline for responding - from their solicitors, or a County Court Claim via the Northampton CNBC, come back to this thread for further advice. 

To get ahead of the curve, you could prepare yourself with a bit of gentle reading of the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement, both situated near the top of the forum thread list. 

Pastafarian_fsm

Umkomaas said:

OK, thanks for separating out the POPLA word porridge. Ignore it. And ignore any silly debt collector letters. 

Parking Solutions 24 aren't a prolific litigator - I can't easily recall any case of theirs that has gone as far as a concluded court hearing. Should they try a potshot in your case, await a Letter Of/Before Claim - giving you a 30 day deadline for responding - from their solicitors, or a County Court Claim via the Northampton CNBC, come back to this thread for further advice. 

To get ahead of the curve, you could prepare yourself with a bit of gentle reading of the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement, both situated near the top of the forum thread list. 

Wonderful, I will take your advice and checkout the section of the FAQ you mention. Fingers crossed I won't need to post back on this, but thank you all for your assistance on this. It's important what you guys do on here.