IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

In car park less than 6 mins still PCN

edited 16 September 2017 at 6:11AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
29 replies 3K views
2

Replies

  • QuentinQuentin Forumite
    40.4K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes. Await them sending you a popla code
  • edited 11 August 2017 at 9:31AM
    claxtomeclaxtome Forumite
    628 Posts
    500 Posts Fourth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    edited 11 August 2017 at 9:31AM
    Thank you once again Quentin for your advice and now will wait to see what comes through post OR is emailed to me in early September.

    fisherjim can I pick up on your post and ask some questions to the forum about it->
    "Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry" is an obvious con to trap as many victims as possible, it contravenes the COP, fairness, and common sense and should be exposed!

    Questions I have about this - open to all->
    Presumably I can contact the BPA and complain to them about the PPC practice?
    Is there anyone else people think I can complain/write/email to?

    Note: Once I find out the landowner I will complain to them as well
  • QuentinQuentin Forumite
    40.4K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Your MP. Local press.
  • DoaMDoaM Forumite
    11.9K Posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    claxtome wrote: »
    My appeal has not been rejected yet, I don't think, I just had a reply by email asking to name the driver and stated they won't reply further until first week in September. (If someone thinks it is a rejection, which I don't have much experience of these things, it certainly didn't provide a POPLA code which I requested).

    Ah, OK - it was just the usual "fishing trip" then, to try and hook the driver's identity. :)
  • Ralph-yRalph-y Forumite
    4.5K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    As above

    try your MP

    this is a copy of a post by Bargepole ....

    "Some action at last:

    http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

    This Private Member's Bill has Government and cross-party support, and stands a good chance of making it into statute.

    The full text of the clauses will be published nearer the date of the second reading, but my sources tell me it's something we should support.

    Now would be a good time to write to your MP urging them to support it."

    let here know that there have been many complaints about this car park scam

    he/ she may well help intervene

    good luck

    Ralph:cool:
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Quentin wrote: »
    Yes. Await them sending you a popla code
    Seconded, they will send a POPLA code, no need to reply to their 'who was driving?' fishing exercise.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 16 September 2017 at 9:03AM
    claxtomeclaxtome Forumite
    628 Posts
    500 Posts Fourth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    edited 16 September 2017 at 9:03AM
    Thanks for all your replies so far - it is appreciated :T

    This week I received the expected NTK Appeal Rejection email which included the desired POPLA code.
    I have drafted the POPLA Appeal after reading threads in this forum and sticky.
    I have uploaded both the Appeal Rejection and draft POPLA Appeal to the same Dropbox folder mentioned in my opening post.
    (I have also updated my opening post with a summary of the case).

    Please can you look over my draft POPLA Appeal:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/icnmvf42re6vbye/POPLA%20Appeal.pdf?dl=0
    Note: Bits in red are the tailored bits for my specific case.


    The main questions I have is:
      Should I add to my appeal by mentioning - "Driver entered car park with sole purpose of paying to be park but as machine wouldn't accept money they decided to leave and park elsewhere. The driver spent most of the 5 mins trying to pay for parking"

    Appreciate any comments/suggestions
  • Guys_DadGuys_Dad Forumite
    11K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Got a "Can't open file" on my tablet.

    But if you have put in a generic kitchen sink appeal, and you were only there for 6 minutes, make sure GRACE is the most prominent point as you don't really need any other.
  • claxtomeclaxtome Forumite
    628 Posts
    500 Posts Fourth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    I am not sure why you can't view it Guys Dad

    Did you try the link to the full folder in my header post?
  • edited 16 September 2017 at 3:11PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 16 September 2017 at 3:11PM
    Here it is, I guess tablets are not great at viewing certain links.

    Don't supply the NTK itself, or the t&c sign (unless the photo you have is lovely and blurry!). Leave that to Premier Park to muck up/forget.

    POPLA code: Vehicle Registration:

    On the XX/XX/XXXX, I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX acting as a notice to the registered keeper [STRIKE](Appendix A – add NTK sent). [/STRIKE]I appealed to Premier Park as the registered keeper and received an email denying my appeal dated XX/XX/XXXX. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

    1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.
    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
    3. Inadequate and unclear signage
    4. Grace period too small for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park
    5. Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.


    1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.


    In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

    • Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper:
    (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
    (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.

    Premier Park insinuates that they do not know the name or address of the driver through their request to the keeper to part with that information. ”If you were not the driver we ask you to supply the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that we may address this request to them.” This however, is not a statement of lack of knowledge regarding the name and service address of the driver.

    While Premier Park does ask the keeper to pay the unpaid charges and supply a name and address for the driver, they do not ask them to pass on the notice to the driver.

    • Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (f) The notice to keeper does not:

    "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".

    YOU NEED MORE HERE, EXPLAINING THAT PP'S SHODDY WORDING: 'WITHIN 29 DAYS' (OF WHAT?) OMITS ANY MENTION OF 'THE DATE THE NOTICE IS GIVEN' AND MISSTATES THE TIMELINE FOR KEEPER LIABILITY, WHICH IS NEVER 29 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE, WHICH IS THE IMPLICATION FROM THEIR AMBIGUOUS AND BADLY-DRAFTED PCN.


    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. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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 6061796103 against 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.''


    3. Inadequate and unclear signage

    The BPA CoP, (Section 18.2) states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and
    conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”

    There is no sign at the entrance to this car park and only the 'welcome including P' sign is visible from the road. [STRIKE](Appendix B – entrance photo).[/STRIKE] Therefore, to be able to read the additional signs within the car park, the driver must enter the car park.

    Furthermore, the signs inside the car park are small [STRIKE](Appendix C – terms and conditions sign)[/STRIKE] and the information is not legible from a driver's seat. [STRIKE]To be able to read the terms, the driver would need to stop the car, get out and read the information. [/STRIKE]

    I WOULD REMOVE THAT LAST LINE BECAUSE POPLA WILL SAY 'YES, AND THE DRIVER SHOULD DO'. ADD THE TEMPLATE LONG 'UNCLEAR SIGNS' WORDING FROM THE NEWBIES THREAD TO MAKE THIS APPEAL EVEN LONGER.



    4. Grace period too small for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park
    Only a very small grace period of 5 minutes is allowed at this car park. This doesn't give enough reasonable time, for someone, in the rain, to get out of the car, read the signs, decide not to park and drive off. The Notice to Keeper shows the time difference between entering the car park and leaving at just over 5 and a half minutes which is [STRIKE]less than 1 minute over the very small grace period[/STRIKE] in breach of the BPA Code of Practice mandatory grace period.

    From the BPA CoP: 13 Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.



    5. [STRIKE]That[/STRIKE] Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.


    I do not believe that Premier Park has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier Park must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

    Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

    “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    Section 7.3 states: “The written authorisation must also set out:

    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any
    restrictions on hours of operation

    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

    I contend that Premier Park merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require Premier Park to provide POPLA and me with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits Premier Park to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

    For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). If a redacted contract is produced, it is unlikely to prove who signed it and when, nor prove that authority was in place at the material date.

    I've added a few comments in red. :)
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides

£10-£50 London theatre tickets

For over 45 shows in January and February

MSE Deal

Join the 1p Savings Challenge 2022!

It should help you save £667.95

MSE Forum