NCP - Parked causing obstruction

ChirpyChicken

That will do

1505grandad

" .....does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 para 9(f)(ii), ....."

I believe there is a "2" missing here  -  should be 9(2)(f)(ii)

" ....as the registered keeper of the vehicle,....."

Not sure if there is anything missing after the above statement as it has a comma then the next word has a capital letter  -  or if in fact the statement should be there i.e.:-

"Your NtK is a non-POFA Notice to Keeper as it does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 para 9(f)(ii), as the registered keeper of the vehicle, The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver,........"

mo_1

NCP Have rejected the appeal, they claim to have sent a letter which was not received. This was only known as NCP were contacted through webchat. They have sent a copy of the letter via email. The letter is dated 09/01/26. The letter states POPLA appeals should be within 28 days so an appeal must be sent by 06/02/26?

Car1980

Show us this mystery letter please.

mo_1

Here is the letter

ChirpyChicken

Just do an appeal to popla on the basis of no keeper liability. On that sole point

mo_1

1) 

This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the wording used.


Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. National Car Parks have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates mandatory wording:-

"The notice must - (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

The applicable section here is (ii) because the NTK does not state "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

Or this is a fairly recent successful popla appeal against NCP

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6607270/ncp-parked-in-incorrect-space/p2

Coupon-mad

Yes use that but remove this as it's really old and not needed at the end:

This exact finding was made in 6061796103against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

mo_1

Thanks shall i add poor and inadequate markings as NCP have deemed the vehicle to have been parked causing an obstruction.

3. Poor and inadequate markings.

NCP have claimed that the vehicle was “parked causing an obstruction” I would like to emphasize that the visibility of these said lines has diminished significantly making them almost non existent, rendering it difficult to discern parking regulations and lane markings.NCP must provide clear evidence that the vehicle was indeed parked causing an obstruction, the current markings do not meet the necessary standards for enforcement.

I believe the turn of phrase used at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for council PCNs in similar circumstances is "lines that are of such poor quality have as much legal enforceability as graffiti." 

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81871686#Comment_81871686

I wouldn’t go there. POPLA won’t involve themselves in making a decision (especially one against the operator) which involves them in making assessments judgemental in nature.

Follow the advice of @ChirpyChicken. He knows what he’s doing.