Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • inkypinky999
    • By inkypinky999 10th Oct 17, 11:02 PM
    • 162Posts
    • 85Thanks
    Help Postal PCN, BPA Member - NCP
    • #1
    • 10th Oct 17, 11:02 PM
    Help Postal PCN, BPA Member - NCP 10th Oct 17 at 11:02 PM

    I have read the newbie thread on Parking charge notice.

    I got my notice on 02/10/17 in post from NCP, the notice was issued on 27/09/2017 with date of offence 09/09/1977, they have provided photographic evidence of car entering the parking and car leaving the parking 19 minutes apart. They are demanding £100.00 (or £60.00 if paid in 14 days)

    How shall I approach to handle this situation?, the facts is that I entered the car park but didn't parked in a bay and waited outside bay for my family to come and we then went, the wait would have been around 15-20 min.

    As per newbie thread are these the right steps

    Step 1. Check if NCP is BPA registered - YES

    Step 2. Online Appeal to them as per template provided

    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. [MY PCN Number]

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,

    [My Name as Keeper & Address]

    My question is when should I send this appeal, now or wait for day 26 to submit the appeal ?

    any help/guidance much appreciated.
Page 2
    • inkypinky999
    • By inkypinky999 27th Nov 17, 10:50 PM
    • 162 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    How long does an POPLA appeal response take, it still shows waiting evidence from parking company.

    Do I need to do some pre-work in anticipation that POPLA may reject my appeal or write down some points on assumption that NCP will provide default response
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Nov 17, 10:53 PM
    • 21,333 Posts
    • 26,831 Thanks
    I would have thought 4 to 6 weeks for a response

    you should be planning for a rebuttal, by reading recent POPLA REBUTTAL posts in other threads
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • inkypinky999
    • By inkypinky999 5th Dec 17, 6:09 PM
    • 162 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    Hello all,

    My Appeal has been successful, the parking operator has decided not to contest the appeal. Reason given

    "Unable to provide Landowner authority within the time scales. Wish to withdraw, although we do have the right to enforce as it is a lease management deal."

    What does this mean, can they still pursue further?

    Many thanks to you all for helping me throughout this process, I will be donating £10 to our local charity as a way of saying thank you.

    In terms of helping other users is there a common thread where users update appeal status, i can upload what letter/appeal text i have sent.
    • spookusofbrin
    • By spookusofbrin 28th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Hi Inkypinky999,
    I came across your thread and it's the most similar I have found to my situation.

    In our case the vehicle was caught by the anpr camera entering and exiting 14 minutes apart as we waited to collect a heavily pregnant passenger from a nearby shop.

    I just wanted to ask if your first stage of appeal was to use the template provided in the Newbies thread?
    And if so, did you change any of the wording?

    Many thanks
    • inkypinky999
    • By inkypinky999 28th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    • 162 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    Hi I think I used the template as it is , I will check when I get home, my first stage was rejected I appealed to POPLA which the operator did not contested and I won the appeal.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 28th Apr 18, 10:51 AM
    • 21,962 Posts
    • 34,603 Thanks
    Hi I think I used the template as it is , I will check when I get home, my first stage was rejected I appealed to POPLA which the operator did not contested and I won the appeal.
    Originally posted by inkypinky999
    @spookusofbrin - absolutely standard procedure, as nothing you add to the template initial appeal will get the charge dropped, but adding less than careful stuff about 'what happened' often leads to the identification of the driver, and protection for the keeper under PoFA gets blown right out of the water.

    You can see NCP off by following basic forum advice and procedure.

    Please start your own thread if you need further help (like us having a look at your POPLA appeal draft).
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Apr 18, 2:36 PM
    • 67,203 Posts
    • 79,480 Thanks
    Part of the reason to use the template is that a PPC will know you are on MSE, and cancel.
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • spookusofbrin
    • By spookusofbrin 28th Apr 18, 5:40 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Thanks for the replies.

    I will use the template 'as is' and go from there.

    Many thanks.
    • spookusofbrin
    • By spookusofbrin 12th May 18, 10:13 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Hi all,
    I received an email from NCP today rejecting the appeal.
    They have given me a POPLA code.
    I would appreciate some help creating the POPLA appeal letter.
    Should I start a new thread for this?

    Many thanks.
    • inkypinky999
    • By inkypinky999 12th May 18, 10:20 PM
    • 162 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    I can share what I had submitted if you want that useful
    • spookusofbrin
    • By spookusofbrin 12th May 18, 10:31 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    KeithP I'm new here. I commented on this thread a while back as it was the closest I found to my situation.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th May 18, 10:45 PM
    • 12,791 Posts
    • 13,753 Thanks
    I have now deleted my posts because I had misunderstood the situation.

    I thought I was replying to the original poster.

    As is said so many times on this parking board... trying to deal with the issues of two posters on the same thread can only lead to confusion. In this case it was me that was confused.

    spookusofbrin, I would strongly suggest that you start a new thread and leave this thread for the progression of inkypinky999's issue.
    • spookusofbrin
    • By spookusofbrin 12th May 18, 10:55 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    No problem. I'll start a new thread tomorrow
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th May 18, 11:59 PM
    • 38,194 Posts
    • 22,217 Thanks
    No problem. I'll start a new thread tomorrow
    Originally posted by spookusofbrin

    Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

    POPLA appeals are covered there in detail in #3
    • spookusofbrin
    • By spookusofbrin 13th May 18, 9:02 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    I can share what I had submitted if you want that useful
    Originally posted by inkypinky999

    inkypinky999 - Please could you share your appeal? It would be a great help.

    Many thanks.
    • inkypinky999
    • By inkypinky999 13th May 18, 9:49 PM
    • 162 Posts
    • 85 Thanks
    inkypinky999 - Please could you share your appeal? It would be a great help.
    Many thanks.
    Originally posted by spookusofbrin
    Disclaimer : The information on this post is only intended to give general and preliminary guidance on the matters and issues to which it relates, and:

    1. Should not form the basis upon which any person arrives at any decision or conclusion concerning his, her or their rights or obligations as regards any particular matter;

    2. Does not preclude or restrict the need for any such person to obtain detailed advice specific to his, her or their own situation and circumstances.
    No warranty of any kind whatsoever, whether express or implied, is offered by the poster in respect of the information available on this site, or as to the fitness or suitability of such information for any purpose.

    The poster does not guarantee that such information is complete, fully accurate or entirely up-to-date, and will not be responsible for any adverse results arising from use of such information.

    Certain links on this post connect with other websites maintained by third parties over whom the poster has no control, and no representation is offered as to the accuracy, or as to any other aspect, of the information contained in or contents of such websites.

    This is what I had put in my appeal only specific to my POPLA appeal.

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
    Subject: Parking charge reference number: [Enter Notice number], Vehicle Registration: [Enter Registration],

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle [Enter Registration] and am appealing a parking charge from National Car Parks Limited (NCP) on the following points:

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
    3. 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.
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    The details on above points are as listed below:-

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

    As per the notice received by post from NCP on [ENTER DATE], the date of offence is mentioned as [ENTER date WHEN THE OFFENCE Parking occurred] and date of sending this notice is [ENTER DATE WHEN NOTICE WAS SENT], which is more than 14 days after the offence.
    I have attached the copy of the same in the evidence attachments section.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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.

    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 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 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.''

    3. 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.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    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.

    I have attached some photos of the signs in the evidence attachments section.

    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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    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.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    ''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 judgement 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.

    4. 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 then 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' 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).

    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 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).

    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

    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.

    1. scan of Non Compiant NTK
    2. Photos of parking signs not meeting the guidelines.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

920Posts Today

6,881Users online

Martin's Twitter