NPS paid using the wrong App

Thanks for your reply. Northern Parking Services. I have found a couple of threads relating to them but I'm not sure what grounds to appeal to POPLA with

Thank you all for your help so far. The information was provided by the council but not formally just through a friend but I understand it to be accurate. Would you mind having a look at my draft response please to see if I am along the right track.

I am the keeper of the above vehicle and have received a demand from Northern Parking Services on xxx. My appeal to NPS was rejected on xxxx 2019 and I have been given POPLA Code xxxx

The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds
1. The correct amount of time was paid for and adhered to.
2. Poor Signage
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
4. The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable


.
1. The vehicle xxxx entered the xxx on xxx at xx as evidenced by NPS photographs. Parking was then made at xxx via the cashless system provided by Ringo using registration xxxx and location code xxx and was successful. Ringo services make no provision to print a ticket to display although a text message was received showing payment made. There was reasonable expectation that the payment was made appropriately as this service had been used many times before in car parks in nearby locations. It was only when a PCN arrived that there was a realisation that the wrong app and location code had been used. The attached photograph proves parking was paid for the vehicle but with the wrong details.

2. 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

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist

The site has few and sparse signs that are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and driving angles. The terms and the sum on the signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily and is not sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. The Defendant claims this is a breach of the POFA 2012 Shedule 4 and Schedule 18 of the BPA CoP and offers further evidence of distinguishing this case from the Beavis case as;


3. I do not believe that the person/persons who have employed Northern Parking Services own the land on which I was parked as indicated by the local council. Boundaries within this area are currently in dispute and there is no clear definition of who owns the land on which I was parked. I would therefore request NPS to prove the land on which I was parked is in fact owned by their client.

In addition I believe there is no contract with any landowner/operator that entitles NPS to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCN’s) This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to NPS to prove otherwise so I require NPS to produce an unredacted copy of their contract with any owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCN’s the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between NPS and the alleged owner/occupier, containing nothing that NPS can lawfully use in their own names as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

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 authorised on the material date, 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).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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

4. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, the penalty imposed is wholly disproportionate and does not stand up to scrutiny. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

Thank you for your response. The incident happened on 23rd September and notice was received on 27th September. I appealed on 4th October and this was rejected on 14th October.

In my appeal I said I had paid using the correct amount via Ringo but had entered the wrong location code missing off one digit. I believed even after receiving the PCN notice I had used the right app but wrong code. It was only when I went to check the details after the appeal was rejected I realised it wasn't Ringo but a different company which is shown in very small letters on the side of the machine.