NCP - Parked causing obstruction

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81899172#Comment_81899172

But I already provide that info in the NEWBIES thread post 3 (POPLA) and you know and have been told by several posters, what your winning point is. No extra guidance needed! Confidence…

mo_1

The below are a few things taken from the evidence pack

mo_1

Dear POPLA Accessor,

The NTK is non-POFA compliant. Therefore, POPLA must find that this PCN was not properly given and it must be cancelled.

How can i word it to make it very clear exactly which bit is non complaint for the avoidance of doubt to the assessor.

The NTK stated the charge was incurred for “parked causing an obstruction”

"is liable for a Parking Charge of £100. The charge having been incurred on private land due to the following breach of the car park terms and conditions of use: Parked causing an obstruction, and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the car park ( Wolverhampton Summer Row ) at the time of parking. The breach was observed during your parking session."

On page two of the evidence pack NCP state

At the time this Parking Charge Notice was issued the above vehicles was parked in an NCP managed parking area: Wolverhampton Summer Row. The Parking Charge Notice was issued for the following breach of our contractual Terms and Conditions: Clause 5d “Parking Contraventions “and Clause 10a “Ticket Types and Payment Methods”.

Clauses 5d and 10a make reference to payment? just to be clear payment was made online when entering the carpark via the NCP app.

Clause 5 - Paragraph 5d: “you pay all amounts due for your parking and comply with the requirements set out at clause 10 (Ticket Types and Payment Methods) of these Terms. For the avoidance of doubt, if you choose to pay the parking tariff by using the “Pay By Mobile” service, the payment must be made at the time of parking your vehicle in the Car Park and in any event, before you leave your vehicle in the Car Park.”

Clause 10 – Paragraph 10a: “you must purchase a parking ticket from the ticket machines at the Car Park either with cash or a credit/debit card, before leaving your vehicle and ensure that the parking ticket is clearly displayed in the windscreen of your vehicle."

Surely they should be making reference to 5c not 5d????

2. Observed from observed to and total duration are 00:00:00

Observed From: 30/11/-0001 00:00

Observed To: 30/11/-0001 00:00

Total Duration: 00:00:00

The images on page 13 and 14 of the signs are not prominent, clear or legible, they cannot be read, the text for parking charges is small and hidden in a long text paragraph.

I must also point out that 'proofs' or stock images are not indicative of how the signs were at the location on that date.

Coupon-mad

2. Observed from observed to and total duration are 00:00:00

Observed From: 30/11/-0001 00:00

Observed To: 30/11/-0001 00:00

Total Duration: 00:00:00

I agree - but there's more. That is saying the car was observed for zero seconds on 30th November in what looks like the year 0001. Yet they are claiming the car was there on a date in December. This makes no sense and fails to demonstrate that a parking event occurred or was seen.

Re your first point: you've missed the point on the lack of PoFA wording and it's really really easy!

Read para 9(2)f of Schedule 4 of POFA.

mo_1









is it the below? This was sent in my appeal to popla.

1. The Notice to keeper (NTK) is Not PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) compliant 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"

Coupon-mad

Yes, but HOW did that lose at POPLA?!

mo_1

its not a loss yet, i have to make comments on the operators evidence then it will get assessed.

Coupon-mad

Oh yes of course. Sorry I got distracted by family birthday celebrations and the football.

Anyway - that is all you need to reiterate.

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81904282#Comment_81904282

That's more like the year -1 - which could be interpreted as 1899 or 1898, depending on the system.