UKPC Parking Charge Consideration Period Question

twilightzone

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044021#Comment_82044021

Thanks for very much for this! it appears to be the right people, I will email their property management director.

Should I explain everything? or jump straight into the harassment / equality act angle?

twilightzone

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044000#Comment_82044000

Thanks for this, I only mentioned the ANPR because when I appealed and stated that I left before a contract could be formed, they didn't try to argue with me with ANPR data to show I was there longer than I had claimed.

Anyway, I am back to Plan A and will explore this avenue first.. Thanks again

Jame4ters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044019#Comment_82044019

CBRE definitely have UK offices.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044035#Comment_82044035

Study the Successful Complaints group thread, see if there are any suitable complaint letters/ emails from other victims, from anywhere in England and Wales ( not just that site. )

Coupon-mad

"A blue badge was prominently displayed on the windscreen, but the car was about a tyres width overlapped onto on the hatched markings around the bay."

That is OK and within the accessible bay. The wider curtilage is there for your benefit.

Also there are no full contractual signs in those bays, are there? Bet I'm right…

twilightzone

Just an update, CBRE no longer manage this site. I was given another contact number to find out who does.

Will update again, and thanks again to those who helped

twilightzone

Just an update, I contacted Colliers last week after being informed they now manage this site, but no response yet to my email, I have also emailed a few more people at Colliers in the hope of some kind of response or acknowledgement, but I feel need to have a backup plan in case I get no answer.

I am preparing my Popla appeal, just in case..

As previously mentioned there was no ANPR data, and the NTK mentions no period of stay, I realise that they aren't claiming that I overstayed, but I am lead to believe they still should provide the period of stay according to Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to successfully transfer liability to the registered keeper? am I right?

A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;


No Proof of "Parking" or Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
The operator has supplied no ANPR gate entry/exit data to substantiate a prolonged stay. They have only provided manual close-up images spanning less than a minute. They cannot prove the car was "parked" rather than merely stationary while the driver evaluated the safety of the bay. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the operator has failed to provide strict proof of a parking breach to hold the Keeper liable

Breach of BPA Code of Practice: No Consideration Period Allowed
The operator's photographic evidence clearly indicates a timestamp duration spanning a total of only 59 seconds. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that motorists must be given a minimum of 5 minutes to enter a site, read the terms and conditions displayed on the signage, and decide whether to stay or leave without penalty. A total elapsed time of 59 seconds cannot legally constitute a parking event; it is explicitly a "turnaround" and falls entirely within the mandatory consideration period. Consequently, no contract was ever accepted or formed

Failure to Apply the Equality Act 2010 & Lack of Reasonable Adjustment
The vehicle was stopped inside a designated disabled bay. Part of the wheel crossed into the marked hatching area directly adjacent to the bay. This hatched area is explicitly provided as a statutory facility for the utilization of disabled motorists to facilitate access (e.g., side-loading/unloading). By issuing a ticket for a wheel slightly crossing into space designed for that very motorist's accessibility needs, the operator has failed in its legal duty to provide a "reasonable adjustment" under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, the operator completely ignored these statutory representations during the initial appeal, demonstrating a systemic failure to review individual mitigating medical/disability needs.

As always, I appreciate everyone who has commented so far and warmly welcome any further comments or observations.

Thankyou :)

twilightzone

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044225#Comment_82044225

There is a sign close to the bay, and viewable from a small distance…but not within the bay, no

Coupon-mad

Breach of the Code. Read the bit about blue badge bays and add something about that.

Change this:

"They cannot prove the car was "parked" rather than merely stationary while the driver evaluated the safety of the bay."

to

Two very quick images taken of the front and back cannot prove the car was "parked" or even left in the bay unattended, rather than manoeuvring. Even if it was stationary for a matter of seconds, this isn't an immediate breach for a disabled motorist, given there were no contractual signs visible from the driver's seat. No contract based on signage can be deemed 'agreed' without the opportunity to read the terms. The operator is put to strict proof that full terms were readable without getting out of the driver's seat, as required (cite the CoP clause about that here).

And add the other bit from the Code about disabled people needing longer to comply with terms.

And change:

"The vehicle was stopped"

to

The vehicle is shown

Also,

• attach a pic of the blue badge, so the Assessor is aware that the driver was entitled to be in that bay, and
• what about the other two usual (for every case) POPLA points as recommended in the NEWBIES thread? They are there in post 3 but you will have to change the quotes from the old para 7 of the BPA CoP to clause 14 and Annex F of the Joint Code instead.

twilightzone

Thanks again, here is my current POPLA appeal draft


Failure to Specify the Period of Parking – No Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012

The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for a charge relating to an alleged parking contravention. However, the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the "period of parking" as required by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The requirement to specify the period of parking is mandatory. Parliament did not limit this requirement to cases where the duration of stay is disputed or where an overstay is alleged. It applies to all notices seeking to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4.
Regardless of the nature of the alleged contravention, a Notice to Keeper that does not specify the period of parking does not comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012.

As the operator has failed to comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), it cannot rely upon the keeper liability provisions contained within Schedule 4. Consequently, pursuant to Paragraph 6(1), the operator has no right to recover any parking charges from the registered keeper.

The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed.

Consideration Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

The operator's photographic evidence clearly indicates a timestamp duration spanning a total of only 59 seconds. Even if it was stationary for a matter of seconds, two very quick images taken of the front and back cannot prove the car was "parked" or even left in the bay unattended. Annex B.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that motorists must be given a minimum of 5 minutes to enter a site, read the terms and conditions displayed on the signage, and decide whether to stay or leave without penalty. A total elapsed time of 59 seconds cannot legally constitute a parking event. Furthermore, given that a Blue Badge was prominently displayed, Under section 4 of the BPA Code of Practice people with disabilities might reasonably need a longer consideration period than those set out in Annex B.1.

Whilst the BPA Code permits a consideration period to end earlier where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the parking contract, the operator has produced no such evidence that the driver left the area, accepted the terms and conditions, or otherwise brought the consideration period to an end.

The operator has therefore failed to provide evidence that it has allowed the mandatory consideration period, as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

Inadequate signage for blue badge holders

Under Section 4.1 of the BPA Code of Practice the parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises. I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked.

Failure to Apply the Equality Act 2010 & Lack of Reasonable Adjustment

The vehicle was shown inside a designated disabled bay. Part of the wheel crossed into the marked hatching area directly adjacent to the bay. This hatched area is explicitly provided as a statutory facility for the utilization of disabled motorists to facilitate access (e.g., side-loading/unloading). By issuing a parking charge notice for a wheel slightly crossing into space designed for that very motorist's accessibility needs, the operator has failed in its legal duty to provide a "reasonable adjustment" under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, the operator completely ignored these statutory representations during the initial appeal, demonstrating a systemic failure to review individual mitigating medical/disability needs.

No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is
put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they
produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any
'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as
any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' or 'disabled customer' exemptions or any
site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is
authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact
have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent
is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the
agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers
and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land
use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

information such as any exemption, clauses, grace / consideration periods and basic information such as the land boundary
and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the
various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and
of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be
assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking
terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put
this operator to strict proof of full compliance: