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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 5th Jan 18, 4:10 PM
    • 66Posts
    • 29Thanks
    Pdmum
    pcn to registered keeper
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:10 PM
    pcn to registered keeper 5th Jan 18 at 4:10 PM
    Received pcn as registered keeper. I am not the driver. Put in appeal using template letter which has been rejected. reason for rejection is different to reason shown on PCN. Does this breach POFA 4. If so what do i do now, I have been issued with a POPLA CODE.
Page 2
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 18th Jan 18, 12:17 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Thanks for your reply
    No i was not in the car and none of the occupants are disabled or suffering from medical conditions.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 18th Jan 18, 4:57 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Should i submit my Popla now or does anyone think it needs more/less. Thanks
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 18th Jan 18, 9:33 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    Here is my best effort at helping you to improve your POPLA appeal:

    1) If the Private Parking Company (PPC), Premier Park in this case, specify date, entry and exit times I would say they are specifying the period of parking as per POFA Schedule 4 so would question whether the following should be included:
    Sch4 Para9 (2) (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates
    Premier Park only specify entry and exit time which are not specific to the period of parking.
    2) I would reword as follows the next section if you still want to include it ( I personally wouldn't include it)->
    Sch 4 Para9 (2) (c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.
    Premier Park's Notice To Keeper states reason for PCN as "Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay". Duration is stated as 2:18.
    The Premier Park are now sayingappeal rejection stated the reason for PCN as "The vehicle overstayed the paid parking period".
    Therefore the PCN reason is misleading in the NTK and not a true statement of fact if payment was in fact made for part if not all of the duration.
    3) Suggest slight alteration of the following:
    Sch4 Para9 (2) (f) 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.

    Attention should be drawn to the Premier Park’s at best unclear and at worse incorrect PCNNTK. In particular the last paragraph states:
    “If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle”.

    Within 29 days of what? It fails to mention the date the notice was given and misstates the timeline of keeper liability which is never 29 days from thisthe date of the notice, which is the implication from their ambiguous and badly-drafted PCN.
    4) This paragraph is very unclear as it is currently worded. I suggest you embed the images in the appeal by scanning the NTK and reword to specify exactly what is wrong with images:
    4. Images of alleged breach are unclear.
    Images of vehicle are unclear to the location. The number plate images do not match up to the vehicle images and are not true images of the numberplates for this vehicle.
    General comment - You are trying to make it easy for the POPLA assessor to read your appeal so suggest putting more spaces to separate paragraphs as per other POPLA appeals.

    Finally a question - did the driver pay for any parking on the day?

    HTH
    Last edited by claxtome; 18-01-2018 at 9:37 PM.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 18th Jan 18, 11:03 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Hi , Thank you for your feedback. Points 1 and 2 are subject to interpretation i suppose, do you think these would go against me?
    Also as i cant get to site at moment do you think i should ask for proof of signage. The only images i have seen on google show no sign at entrance and many of the other signage is camouflaged by some very dramatic graffiti.
    2 hours parking was paid for.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jan 18, 11:57 PM
    • 58,279 Posts
    • 71,829 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The only images i have seen on google show no sign at entrance and many of the other signage is camouflaged by some very dramatic graffiti.
    Where is that in the POPLA appeal, I couldn't see it? You need to say it and can use Google maps images embedded in your appeal, have you done that?

    You don't get to add pics/new evidence later, must be in there now.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 19th Jan 18, 12:19 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Ok thanks, will try to do that and suggestion for point 4 and repost appeal. Thank you claxtome and Coupon-mad.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 19th Jan 18, 1:34 AM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    Points 1 and 2 are subject to interpretation i suppose, do you think these would go against me?
    I wouldn't think so.

    2 hours parking was paid for.
    I would suggest then they are saying the driver only paid for 2 hours not 2 hours 18 mins.
    The 18 mins can be explained in terms of 2 different grace periods of 10 mins:
    1 the time taken to find a space, stop, read the signs and pay for a ticket.
    2 the time taken to leave the busy car park as per BPA Code of Practice (CoP) guidelines which allows 10 mins.
    Suggest you had a bit more to your grace period section about the initial grace period.

    I assume you had to enter the registration of the vehicle and this is printed on the ticket?
    I am not 100% sure but I would embed an image of the ticket purchased if you still have it.

    Embedded images of the signage would be great and if you look at other POPLA appeals usually a huge section is added about this to POPLA appeals.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 21st Jan 18, 7:25 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    POPLA Final Draft.
    Think i now have my POPLA appeal fine tuned, have decided to leave out section 4.
    If anyone could find time to read and comment, i will be very grateful.
    POPLA code xxxxxx
    Vehicle Registration xxxxxxx

    I am the registered keeper of this vehicle
    I do not drive this vehicle.

    I received a Parking Charge Notice which was issued on xxxxxx
    I appealed to Premier Park as registered keeper and received an email rejecting my appeal on xxxxxx
    I wish to appeal the rejection on the following grounds:
    1. Notice to keeper is non compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and therefore no keeper liability can be established.
    2. Premier Park have not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
    3. Premier Park need to show that they have taken into account Grace periods as set out in the BPA CoP.

    4. Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.

    5. Signage at Car Park inadequate.


    1.Notice to Keeper is not fully compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and therefore no keeper liability can be established.
    A notice to keeper must fully comply with all of POFA’s strict requirements. Premier Park have failed to do this for a number of reasons:
    Sch4 Para9 (2) (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates
    Premier Park only specify entry and exit time which are not specific to the period of parking.
    Sch 4 Para9 (2) (c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.
    Premier Park’s Notice To Keeper states reason for PCN as “Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay.” Duration is stated as 2:18.
    The Premier Park appeal rejection stated the reason for PCN as The vehicle overstayed the paid parking period.
    Therefore the PCN reason is misleading in the NTK and not a true statement of fact if payment was in fact made for part if not all of the duration.
    Sch4 Para9 (2) (e)
    State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and 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.

    Sch4 Para9 (2) (f) 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.

    Attention should be drawn to the Premier Park’s at best unclear and at worse incorrect NTK. In particular the last paragraph states:
    “If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle”.

    Within 29 days of what? It fails to mention the date the notice was given and misstates the timeline of keeper liability which is never 29 days from the date of the notice.

    2. Premier Park have 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. Premier Park need to show that they have taken into account Grace periods as set out in the BPA CoP.
    BPA CoP: 13 Grace periods13.2 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.
    Premier Park have indicated by email (not on the PCN) there was an overstay on a paid parking period, they have not confirmed what the overstay was, but need to show that the 2 grace periods have been taken into account.
    In the first instance enough time has to be allowed for a driver to enter the car park, find a space to park and to locate and read signs.
    Signs at this site are difficult to locate ( see section 5 on signage).

    Premier Park have not confirmed what the initial Grace Period is at the site in question.

    Common sense is paramount in the second instance and must allow for the driver on a cold winter night to sufficiently defrost their vehicle to allow a safe exit .

    Section 92.4 of the BPA CoP states drivers ought to drive safely and act responsibly while using a private car park.
    Rule 229 of the highway code also states in part:-
    Before you set off
    • you MUST be able to see, so clear all snow and ice from all your windows
    • you MUST ensure that lights are clean and number plates are clearly visible and legible
    • make sure the mirrors are clear and the windows are demisted thoroughly.
    To put pressure on a driver to leave before it is safe to do so in fear of an extortionate fine is both unreasonable and reckless behaviour.


    4. 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.

    5.Signage at Car Park inadequate. (images shown)

    There are no signs at the entrance to this car park which comprises of stacked crushed cars.
    The sign to the left of the entrance show an arrow pointing away from the car park so is clearly relating to another car park.
    COP 18. States “you must have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area”
    Inside the car park signage is sparse, not shown at all next to many parking spaces. The area is not well lit at night.
    Where this is signage, it is small and well camouflaged by the dramatic graffiti images making them difficult to see in daylight and practically impossible in darkness.
    5.Images of Car Park entrance and signage.

    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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    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.

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

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''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:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''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:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    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 ti 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. me, from the angle of the driver's perspective.
    Thank you for your time.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 21st Jan 18, 7:27 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Dont know why my images dont show. Thinking i might have to post this! ( am not very good on computers)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jan 18, 7:32 PM
    • 58,279 Posts
    • 71,829 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, do NOT post it snail mail to POPLA!

    Your images don't show here because you can't post links, but in your original word document you need to embed actual picture images, and will be able to see them. So will POPLA in your final PDF version.

    Make sure you show your own pics, and do the appeal online, ticking 'OTHER' (bottom right choice) no others.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-01-2018 at 8:33 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 21st Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    There are 2 number 5 headings in your latest version.
    I suggest you don't need the second heading.

    Otherwise I have no specific comments.

    I think your appeal looks very promising.
    Last edited by claxtome; 21-01-2018 at 8:39 PM.
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 21st Jan 18, 9:29 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Thank you so much for all your help x
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 7th Feb 18, 6:53 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Premier evidence now received
    I have now received pcn evidence from POPLA.
    They have stated 2 reasons for the pcn. The original reason as shown on their copy sent to myself. Later they are saying that the vehicle was parked also the day before and that is a combined reason for the pcn, ie *hours * mins which is not what i am appealing against.Basically they are contradicting themselves.
    Also their copy of landowner contract shows date tbc which has been crossed out and a date handwritten onto the typed document. Parts appear to be missing and i cant find any trace of the ltd company who they say have signed on behalf of the client.
    What do i do now, would it be helpful to copy their reply on here?
    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Feb 18, 7:38 PM
    • 7,649 Posts
    • 7,336 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...would it be helpful to copy their reply on here?
    Originally posted by Pdmum
    Yes, please do that.
    .
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 7th Feb 18, 9:07 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    This is the case summary.


    We have placed a number of signs around the location which have been approved by the BPA Auditing Team. Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and have brought the issue of a PCN, and its amount, to the adequate attention of the motorist. Signs – according to British Parking Association Code of Practice 18.2 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. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. The sign at the entrance does meet all of the BPAs guidance. The motorist would not be doing 30mph at this point as there is an approach and the motorist is not directly entering the car park from the road. 18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm We enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage. The signage clearly states: Please pay for your stay. Please enter the full, correct, vehicle registration details at the payment terminal, of the vehicle you are parking. Charges apply at all times. • All permit holders must have their vehicle pre registered before using the car park. • Park only within marked bays. • No stopping or waiting. If you cannot pay for any reason do not park. • Blue badge concessions do not apply. • The xxxxxx is not involved in the parking management of this car park and cannot intervene in any disputes. • Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes. • Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry. • Pay by Phone It also states that if you enter or park on this land, contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. This car park is run by ANPR cameras which take a photograph using infrared technology to capture vehicles as they enter and exit this site. These photographs are time and date stamped. To complete a successful paid parking session the driver must follow the correct process in order to pay for their stay, whether from the machine or via RingGo. The vehicle entered the site at 19:55. We can confirm that a 2 hour parking session was purchased at 19:57. Therefore, the driver was able to read the signage and be aware of the terms and conditions. The parking session expired at 21:57 and the Appellants vehicle exited the site at 22:13, 16 minutes after the parking session expired. When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. 13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 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. The Appellants vehicle exited the site 16 minutes after the parking session expired, exceeding the minimum grace period of 10 minutes, as set by the BPA. The Appellants vehicle remained parked on site and the driver agreed to the terms and conditions. If the driver felt, for any reason, that they were not able to adhere to the terms and conditions, then they would have had sufficient opportunity to choose not to park and depart the site. We have provided a log showing that the Appellants vehicle had been parked on site the day prior to the date of the contravention and therefore the driver had sufficient opportunity to be aware of the terms and conditions. The Appellant’s vehicle was parked for 4hours and 21 minutes but payment was only made for 4 hours. Therefore, an unpaid parking session occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that this appeal be refused. With regards to the appellant’s remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the recent Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Details on the case be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Feb 18, 9:11 PM
    • 7,649 Posts
    • 7,336 Thanks
    KeithP
    Now can you please make it readable.

    Help others to help you.
    .
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 7th Feb 18, 9:39 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Sorry am not sure what you mean Keith, i can see it. Did you mean for me to post the whole 50 pages!
    What i have posted is just the summary
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 9:40 PM
    • 58,279 Posts
    • 71,829 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A wall of words is not readable, I for one, won't even attempt to read that as yet.

    Paragraph it please - each bullet point on a separate line, nice short paragraphs.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Feb 18, 9:40 PM
    • 7,649 Posts
    • 7,336 Thanks
    KeithP
    I can see it too, but I cannot even think about reading it.
    .
    • Pdmum
    • By Pdmum 7th Feb 18, 9:41 PM
    • 66 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Pdmum
    Did you want me to just pick out the bits i think may be relevant.
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

58Posts Today

2,673Users online

Martin's Twitter