PCN @ Brentwood Station full payment made before noticing I had a ticket

Thorsson · 23 July 2018 at 9:07AM

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

So much for transparency! Thanks Thorsson - glad you know enough to probe deeper.

Interestingly, the car park management contract between NCP and LUL defines car parks as:
"the areas set aside at LUL or other TfL group stations for customers to park motor vehicles....." (my bold)

and TfL group is defined as:
"TfL and all of its subsidiaries..... "

This suggests the contract includes non-LUL car parks. Though it's odd how this can happen when LUL's sister companies are strangers to the contract. Perhaps there are separate side contracts between LUL and its siblings?

Possibly, but there are other possibilities, like an amendment to the contract to include any TfL subsidiary, or simply a working arrangement agreed in a side letter/email. Possibly you could find something out by a FOI request.

TfL is a strange organisation. I once went to a meeting with them with a colleague - they had no less than 13 people at the meeting, all scribbling notes furiously. However, subsequent to the meeting not one of their actions was actually carried out and we ended up in a similar meeting a year later, with a different bunch of people...

Thorsson · 23 July 2018 at 9:09AM

@atanks. I'll bow to the superior knowledge on this board, but that simply looks like an attempt to "blag" the name of the driver from you, which you should never give them. Have you checked the NEWBIE thread for this, as it seems like something that will have been tried before.

atanks · 23 July 2018 at 9:35AM

Thanks for your help I think I will appeal again through the website using the below template on the newbies page...

"Re PCN number:

I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

Yours faithfully, "

Handbags-at-dawn · 23 July 2018 at 12:43PM

Thorsson wrote: »

...... that simply looks like an attempt to "blag" the name of the driver from you, which you should never give them..

That's exactly what it is.

They are saying, in effect, "we are going to bombard you with debt collectors' letter etc, but you can't answer back because you were not a party to the contract". Looks like a bit of an own goal to me.

Firstly, NCP are members of the BPA and must therefore abide by its code of practice. Rule 22 says: "You must have procedures for dealing promptly, fairly and efficiently with any communication from the motorist. The procedures must give drivers and keepers the chance to appeal a Parking Charge Notice." So if they continue refusing to hear your appeal, complain to Steve Clark of the BPA: Steve.C@britishparking.co.uk

Secondly, adopting their own argument that they cannot "disclose or discuss information or issues with third parties such as yourself" without the driver's consent: they do not have the driver's consent; they therefore have no further reason to retain your personal data. Certainly they shouldn't be passing it on the debt collectors. So again, if they continue refusing to hear your appeal, you can point this out to them and require that your personal data is deleted from their records.

atanks · 30 July 2018 at 6:45PM

Thanks for that, have been waiting for both replies to my initial appeals before building something to send to "Steve Clark of the BPA

The first appeal I received the letter through the post above as detailed earlier in the thread..

Today I received an email from them which has confused me further as to what their process is...
issued at Brentwood Station (LUL) on 18 July 2018 to vehicle with registration mark ....

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number. We have considered the case carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds;

At the time of issue, the Parking Attendant could not find details of a payment made by our Cashless Payment Service.
I have searched for using this system, and although you had made a payment, the Parking Charge Notice had already been issued.

The Terms and Conditions of which our services are provided are clearly displayed on entrance and throughout our facilities, including the requirement for all motorists to pay in advance for their parking. We are confident that all signage and the PCN are compliant with all industry standards and to the British Parking Association's code of practice to which we subscribe.

You now have the following options;
Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted amount of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will increase to the full charge of £100.00.
Payment can be made:
* Online, by visiting
* By sending a cheque or postal order, made payable to National Car Parks Ltd to: National Car Parks Ltd. Notice Processing, PO Box 839, Northampton, NN4 4AL.
* By Debit or Credit card (except American Express). Please call 0330 088 2902 and have your card details and the information held in this letter to hand.

Alternatively, you can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service. If you wish to make an appeal to POPLA the forms are available on the website at The verification code you will need in order to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service is ...... Please note that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose your opportunity to pay the discounted offer and the full amount of the parking charge will apply. Your appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this letter, any appeals to POPLA made after the 28 days will not be assessed. The independent adjudicator is unable to waive the parking notice because of mitigating circumstances and a decision will be based on facts and evidence only. If you have any trouble in appealing or cannot access the website please contact us on 01604 625 622.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ( provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

ps.. had to remove URL's due to being a newbie...:money:

Redx · 30 July 2018 at 6:58PM

ok , if you now have a popla code then construct a popla appeal based on similar ones like APCOA at train stations like Manchester Victoria , or the METROLINK ones in Manchester where Care Parking are involved

any that were appealed in the last 12 months are worth looking at

atanks · 31 July 2018 at 8:10AM

Thanks for the tips. I've had a browse and found this popla appeal letter. Tweaked it slightly but it's relevent to my appeal - poor signage etc. Do you think it's good enough to send?

1) APCOA not using POFA 2012
2) Not ‘Relevant Land’ (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
4) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
6) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver
7) Lack of standing / authority from landowner

1) Not using POFA 2012
From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under railway byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

2) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

“(1) This schedule applies where –
(a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore APCOA are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

In addition, POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012.

3) Amount demanded is a penalty

Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

4) Transferring keeper liability

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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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 Notice to Keeper.

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 because the fact remains I am only 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, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 2012 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 is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 2 above.

5) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

6) Lack of standing / authority from landowner

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 do not believe that this operator's mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a TOC gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay APCOA (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and APCOA cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). APCOA have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that APCOA are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require APCOA to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put APCOA to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,

Umkomaas · 31 July 2018 at 8:52AM

Looks ok to me. BUT why are you quoting the PPC as 'APCOA' when you're dealing with a PCN from NCP?

atanks · 31 July 2018 at 3:59PM

ah ok! I did type a message asking if this was the template you was referring too... it seems I must of copy and pasted the rest out...

So if I replace APCOA with NCP is that still applicable even for point one they do not reference the byelaws. However do rejected my claim due to not paying for my ticket in advance when the signage says within 10 minutes of entering the car park?

atanks · 2 August 2018 at 8:10PM

atanks wrote: »

Thanks for that, have been waiting for both replies to my initial appeals before building something to send to "Steve Clark of the BPA

The first appeal I received the letter through the post above as detailed earlier in the thread..

Today I received an email from them which has confused me further as to what their process is...
issued at Brentwood Station (LUL) on 18 July 2018 to vehicle with registration mark ....

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number. We have considered the case carefully and have decided to reject your appeal on the following grounds;

At the time of issue, the Parking Attendant could not find details of a payment made by our Cashless Payment Service.
I have searched for using this system, and although you had made a payment, the Parking Charge Notice had already been issued.

The Terms and Conditions of which our services are provided are clearly displayed on entrance and throughout our facilities, including the requirement for all motorists to pay in advance for their parking. We are confident that all signage and the PCN are compliant with all industry standards and to the British Parking Association's code of practice to which we subscribe.

You now have the following options;
Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted amount of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will increase to the full charge of £100.00.
Payment can be made:
* Online, by visiting
* By sending a cheque or postal order, made payable to National Car Parks Ltd to: National Car Parks Ltd. Notice Processing, PO Box 839, Northampton, NN4 4AL.
* By Debit or Credit card (except American Express). Please call 0330 088 2902 and have your card details and the information held in this letter to hand.

Alternatively, you can make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service. If you wish to make an appeal to POPLA the forms are available on the website at The verification code you will need in order to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service is ...... Please note that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose your opportunity to pay the discounted offer and the full amount of the parking charge will apply. Your appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this letter, any appeals to POPLA made after the 28 days will not be assessed. The independent adjudicator is unable to waive the parking notice because of mitigating circumstances and a decision will be based on facts and evidence only. If you have any trouble in appealing or cannot access the website please contact us on 01604 625 622.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ( provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

ps.. had to remove URL's due to being a newbie...:money:

So after sending me a letter to confirm the driver the quoted response online has done the trick so my fine on the 11th July has not been written off so a success!

I am tempted to use the same template via the online appeal for my second fine on the 18th and if the write that off add it to the complaint as a complete waste of everyone's time giving the fines in the first place!

PCN @ Brentwood Station full payment made before noticing I had a ticket

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free